Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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)

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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Delete - everybody knows that we have never published original research. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
Delete - poorly sourced; an associate professor at a law school has never survived AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Ole Paulsen

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

nn professor, tagged for 9 years, nobody cares. --Altenmann >talk 18:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Norway, and Medicine. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NPROF criterion 5: The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.. He holds the 1883 chair in physiology at Cambridge, as the article states. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Where did you see "distinguished" or "named"? --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
It's a specific professorship -- "named" -- the 1883 professorship. It doesn't have to be named after a specific person, although others at the same level are (e.g. the Laurence Professor of Classical Archaeology). The point is to exclude people who are generically called "professors" merely by virtue of being teachers at certain institutes of higher education. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Citation numbers alone seem to easily pass WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1. See Google Scholar. Needs expansion and better sourcing, but the subject passes the notability guidelines. nf utvol (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This is a very high-citation field but I think his citation counts are still enough for #C1. And old established chairs at Cambridge definitely pass #C5; the "distinguished" part of C5 is aimed at some other universities where named chairs are handed out indiscriminately to faculty members at all levels of achievement. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep named chair at Cambridge, Scopus H-Index 59. Jahaza (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Also past president of The Physiological Society, so arguably NACADEMIC 6 as well. Jahaza (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Google Scholar has h = 70 -- higher than the Scopus value mentioned above, and clearly respectable in physiology. In general his qualifications are very good. Athel cb (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep Per everyone else, with the WP:IDLI in the nomination statement being incredibly prejudicial, and the nominator made no attempt to improve the article themselves (which others did already, so thanks to everyone who did). Nathannah • 📮 21:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep as said before, named chair so no debate, really. And @Altenmann, please don't write things like "nobody cares" in a nomination for AfD - these are real people we're talking about. Lijil (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Having h-index 70 is said "An H-index of 60 or higher is considered "truly unique" or "exceptional".". Clear pass to WP:NPROF and fellow of University of Cambridge. --SatnaamIN (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment:This should be closed as SNOWBALL KEEP without wasting Admin's time. --SatnaamIN (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. There's no reason for this to run the full seven days. nf utvol (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per SNOW. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep . Per the above evaluation of UndercoverClassicist, and his google scholar profile. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Absolutely. JimboGimmeJoe (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
Delete, for the reasons already given. Athel cb (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that this is a high-enough citation field (comparing his citations to those in ) 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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
No, we have no requirement that our sources be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

Delete per nom. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)

Patrick Verkooijen

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

This biography does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO). The article relies heavily on primary sources, press releases, and the subject's own writings. Independent, reliable coverage is limited and does not establish lasting encyclopedic notability separate from the subject's role as founding CEO of the Global Center on Adaptation.

Ref 1 – Press release from the Global Center on Adaptation (primary, self-published)
Ref 2 – Dutch Chamber of Commerce registration (routine listing, not significant coverage)
Ref 3 – Newsweek opinion piece by the subject (self-authored, not independent)
Refs 4–5 – University of Nairobi press releases (primary, duplicated)
Ref 7 – Organizational business plan (primary)
Refs 8–9 – World Resources Institute press releases (primary, not independent)
Refs 10–12 – Institutional appointment announcements (primary sources)

The subject's coverage is largely tied to the Global Center on Adaptation. The NOS investigative reporting (refs 16, 17, 21) focuses primarily on the organization rather than providing sustained, in-depth biographical coverage of the subject. This does not demonstrate significant independent coverage required for a standalone biography.

If deletion is not supported, a redirect or merge to Global Center on Adaptation may be appropriate. AfprodAnalyst (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Netherlands, and Businesspeople. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Coverage relies heavily on primary sources, press releases, and the subject's own writings. The NOS reporting, while reliable, focuses on the Global Center on Adaptation rather than providing biographical coverage of the subject. Phloxyte (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Per Phloxyte, with the addition that this article has, in the past, been edited by at least 3 Kenyan and Nigerian users Socrates Igwe , Zacrosse.Gimbo and Marvs100 who only edited this page, that of the Global Center on Adaptation and Muhammad Ali Pate; showing no inclination whatsoever towards NPOV in their edits; and with two of them being directly asked if they were being paid. Vlaemink (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Paradoxically, I think that being vice chancellor of the University of Nairobi would pass WP:PROF#C6, but his position as chancellor does not: in that system, VC is the actual head of the university but chancellor is a ceremonial position handed out for political reasons. Ban Ki-moon Chair at the University of Groningen might pass WP:PROF#C5, though. Even if he does pass some form of academic notability, the evidence of paid editing might bring WP:TNT into play. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Gulnaz Dadashova

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:NPROF. Previously deleted for this reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulnaz Dadashova. Mariamnei (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete h-index is 4, and apparently, she hasn't authored any books. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Very unimpressive Google Scholar. Extremely few publications with one or two authors, so how do we judge her contribution to those that are cited? Athel cb (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep she hits WP:NACADEMIC point 6 because she’s a director at a research institution significant in her country. Juju (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

What says it's significant? Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
That’s the number one university in her country, according to wikimd. Juju (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Low h-index, not meeting PROF. I don't see much has changed since the last AfD two years ago either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
She clearly hits WP:NACADEMIC point 6 because she’s a director at a research institution significant in her country. According to this wiki policy, she only needs to have one of the following to be considered a notable academic. Juju (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Holding a director position is not sufficient under C6 without evidence that the role itself is highly distinguished or that she has had a substantial impact on her field beyond routine administration. Stationsation ^⚡ 18:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
"Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable....The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." She is highest administrative post in cardiology in her entire nation and has substantial amount of publications. This should be a routine Keep. Juju (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Duplicate vote. Athel cb (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. h-index 4 is almost like nothing to pass WP:NPROF. Poor in citations too. About being "director at a research institution", the research institute isn't notable one. --SatnaamIN (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
It’s bizarre to me that Azerbaijan is seen so poorly that being in the director of the top university of the country is allegedly not “notable” enough. Juju (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
@Jujucabana you are close to WP:BLUDGEON. SatnaamIN (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above (unless I'm missing something). She's the director of the Scientific Research Institute of Cardiology, which may be notable, but probably isn't 'a major academic institution or major academic society' (WP:PROF criterion 6). I note that she's not, as far as I can tell, in a leadership position at Azerbaijan Medical University, as suggested above. If she was, then yes, she'd meet WP:PROF. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Unless some editor with this burden of proof provides clear and convincing evidence for passing NPROF, this must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Saj-nicole A. Joni

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

I tried to do Afd for this article. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in, and further didn't realize that anonymous users can't create articles in the WP:namespace. What a mess!

Meanwhile, I don't think there's a claim to notability here. Most all the references are written by the subject, not about the subject, and that contributes strongly to it reading like a resume. The article was created by a single-purpose account which has never edited anything before or since, stoking neutrality concerns. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep this person seemed to have published significantly and won prestigious awards at a top university. It does need to be rewritten though.

Juju (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Just one award, according to the article, and no indication that it is "prestigious". -- mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

~~Delete~~, as nominator. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template - fixed now. @Mikeblas: The fact of your nomination is an implied delete !vote, so there was no need add an additional note. --Finngall ^talk 23:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
So sorry. I was on tilt from the completely miserable "temporary account" experience. -- mikeblas (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I've struck your !vote for clarity, as the nomination counts as a !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF, nor coverage in reliable independent sources for GNG. The most plausible case for notability appears to be through NAUTHOR, but I did not find any reliably-sourced reviews of her books (although there are a couple of blogs with reviews). The article is in sufficiently poor shape that the WP:TNT essay is relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Jahaza found some book reviews, in sufficient numbers that I am striking my !vote. The article remains in poor shape, and some of the sourcing looks to me like it was "astroturfed". While WP:DINC, I am holding off on replacing !vote. Remark that the PhD thesis and very early work were under the name Joni Shapiro; e.g. thesis library record is here . Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Ah... helpful! Jahaza (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep, I think she squeaks by. I've cleaned up, sourced, and expanded some of the article. Jahaza (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
We also have an article on her book The Right Fight and perhaps we should consider merging that here. Jahaza (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Richard Romm

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

Non notable businessperson/historian, no independent sources, includes own thesis and LinkedIn as citations and Instagram in external links. Telegraph article is a couple of brief quotes about his experience hiring a recruitment agent, no WP:SIGCOV. Orange sticker (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pennsylvania. Orange sticker (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. It is possible for him to be notable under WP:NAUTHOR, but I cannot find any reviews of his books. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete The sources cited in the article don't support notability, and I cannot find other sources to justify notability under WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback so far. I understand that the article currently does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

To help me improve the article, could editors clarify what kinds of sources would be sufficient in this case? For example, would in-depth newspaper features, academic reviews of published works, or profiles in reputable publications be adequate to establish notability?

I want to make sure I’m aligning with Wikipedia’s sourcing expectations as I continue searching for better references.

Any guidance would be appreciated. Surfer7315 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Surfer7315, you might find this explanation of supporting notability helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Does not appear to rise to the level of author notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - we are not LinkedIn, and this is appears to be a conflict of interest. Surfer, you are not a newbie, and you could not have picked a worse time in the past 25 years to create this Wikipedia article. In 2026, powerful interests from Texas to Palm Beach are trying to cancel our charitable status with the excuse of even the appearance of self dealing and DEI like this page. Please, avoid feed our critics. If you feel like this is a legitimate article, then you can wait until January 7, 2027. If you're unhappy, please don't blame us, and don't make me spell out everything to you. You've been an editor for 18 years, so you must be an adult. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
@BearianYour comment is hostile in tone and unsupported by Wikipedia policy.

Labeling this as a “conflict of interest” without evidence or rationale is not acceptable. Likewise, arguing that the article should be delayed due to political sensitivities or external pressures is irrelevant.

Your patronizing remarks about my experience are also out of line. After 18 years of editing, I’m aware of the standards here, and one would expect discussions to remain professional and polite and focused on content rather than condescension.

There is no valid basis for suggesting this article should be postponed or removed. If the hawk-tuah girl is accepted by Wikipedia, there is certainly space available for a scholar.

Please keep further comments focused on policy and content, and refrain from personal or dismissive language. Surfer7315 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Shahin Kabir

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

Does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:NBIO — Raihanur (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Bangladesh, India, and United Kingdom. — Raihanur (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep — The subject meets the Notability Guidelines for Academics (NACADEMIC) and General Notability (GNG). Professor Kabir has a significant record of scholarly publications with top-tier academic publishers, including Springer Nature, IEEE, and Emerald Publishing. His work on the intersection of AI, Law, and the Rohingya crisis is widely cited and recognized in the field. Furthermore, his current and past appointments as an External Academic at the University of Oxford and Columbia Law School (Sabin Center) demonstrate a level of professional standing (Criterion 5) that exceeds the standard for his career stage. The article is also supported by multiple independent media sources, including The New Nation and Daily Nayadiganta, which document his research impact and contributions to the judicial system. His role as an adjudicator for the Surana & Surana International Moot Court and his positions on international editorial boards (e.g., Asian Social Science, Canada) further establish his standing in the legal academic community. The article is well-referenced with DOI-verified academic sources and institutional links, and I am happy to assist in further improving the neutral tone if required. Faisalhossainlimon (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment Faisalhossainlimon is the article creator, and their entire post history is 132 edits on this article alone. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 21:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Spam and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Rht bd (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Only has 330 something citations per Gscholar, I don't see academic notability. Very likely PROMO as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
While 330 citations might seem low in STEM fields, it represents a significant impact in the legal discipline per WP:NPROF Criterion 1. Wikipedia guidelines explicitly state that 'differences in typical citation and publication rates... between different academic disciplines should be taken into account'. In law and the humanities, citation rates are often four to eight times lower than in the physical sciences or medicine. In this context, 330 citations often place a scholar in the top tier of their niche. And, The article is also supported by multiple independent media sources, including The New Nation and Daily Nayadiganta, which document his research impact and contributions to the judicial system Faisalhossainlimon (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. His h-index is only 10 with 339 citations. Doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC. Promotional article. --SatnaamIN (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ The subject clearly meets WP:NPROF (Criteria 1 and 5) and WP:GNG. The argument regarding citation count fails to account for disciplinary norms under WP:NPROF; in the legal and technology fields, 330 citations represent a high level of impact compared to STEM. His affiliations as an External Academic at Columbia Law School and Oxford, combined with research published by Springer Nature, provide objective evidence of academic influence. Furthermore, the in-depth profiles in national outlets like The New Nation and Daily Nayadiganta constitute independent, secondary coverage that moves this article well beyond a "google and researchgate" profile. Most importantly, per WP:PRESERVE, "If the article can be improved, this should be done rather than deleting it." Any "PROMO" concerns regarding tone can be addressed through routine copy-editing to remove "peacock" words, but the underlying notability is established by reliable, third-party sources and does not warrant deletion. Faisalhossainlimon (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Faisalhossainlimon WP:BLUDGEON. Posting walls of text more than once in response to delete votes is discouraged. Also second "keep" vote struck as you may only vote once. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Article is promotional and reads like a resume, sourcing is a mess, and it never actually explains why subject is notable. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom and others Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. Also, an associate professor of law has never been found notable at AfD. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Subject doesn't meet WP:NPROF. There's no indication of notability. Retro music11 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
Keep – Per the above evaluation of Sohom, she meets WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Delete as not up to standard per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC).

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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. There is a feature article about him in the journal La Rotunde , another on ONFR , and he was personality of hte week on Radio Canada. Lijil (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

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)
Keep - Subject passes SIGCOV and I found a new citation. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
Comment: How do we evaluate the academic ranks of the Rand Corporation? Bearian (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Harry Pettit

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

I think this a failure of both WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. Their citation record is pretty weak and there is no evidence of them passing any of the other PROF criteria, and essentially all news coverage of them is from mid 2025 onwards about them making controversial remarks and actions primarily about the Israel-Gaza conflict and then subsequently leaving their academic lecturing job as a result and then failing to get another job. Leaving a job as a result for making controversial remarks about the Israel-Gaza conflict seems pretty unremarkable and not something of long-term encyclopaedic significance, and there's not really any evidence in my view that Pettit is notable as an activist per se. While one might draw a comparison to David Miller (sociologist), Pettit has far less prominence for his academic work than Miller does. The article has been subject to a complaint apparently by the subject's mother on the BLPN noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Harry_Pettit:_Attack_page, which has also questioned his notability, so I think this can reasonably be considered a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Geography, Egypt, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete Per nom - absent the political controversy, notability would be dicey at best, and BLP1E argues for deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This subject appears to fail WP:PROF and the sources tend to indicate WP:BLP1E. The depth of biographical coverage regarding controversy is short of encyclopedic, and the subject is not particularly notable for the controversy. JFHJr (㊟) 20:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment. Leaning keep. He's now departed from one university and been barred from teaching at two others. The story travels across two countries and two years. Sources are available in English, including mainstream reporting from the Belgian news agency. --Jahaza (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
He's been barred from teaching at just one uni. Sources are mainly internal university publications. Mainstream media adds little info ~2026-15754-93 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
(FYI: The above IP claims to be the subjects mother.Vlaemink (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Current sources include NOS Nieuws, National Post, De Telegraaf, and EJC. More have already been listed, which is what is actually relevant. Cortador (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-15754-93; Pettit has been effectively fired by both a Dutch university and a Belgian university within less than a year.Vlaemink (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
The sources are all either Dutch or Belgian, apart from one that does not relate to the subject (National Post) and the EJC which just confirms his contract with VUB was terminated because of complaints made by them. There is a Dutch/Flemish Wikipedia article on the subject which is not a direct translation of this one and feels more appropriate for the Dutch/Flemish speaking world. The first reference given on him was published just over a year ago (11.3.25), apart from confirmation of his publications which is no longer available to read anyway - the screen shot doesn't show it and Radbound no longer have it on their website of course. ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-16688-54: The fact that these valid and trustworthy sources were published by Belgian or Dutch outlets; or the fact that they are in Dutch, doesn't diminish their accuracy or validity in any way, shape or form. All sources listed have been properly archived and are still accessible, so the fact that the Radboud (not Radbound) university doesn't have this information on its current website (again, this makes sense, this person was fired from this institution) is irrelevant.Vlaemink (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. One of the most debated people in the Netherlands. Huge amounts of coverage. Easy pass of the GNG. Referencing here would come in long lists of articles per media channel, not in single articles as we see elsewhere. BLP1E does not apply to many events. Common mistake. gidonb (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... What you have to consider is, if you were looking back on this article from 5 to 10 years from now, and the current coverage was all that exists, would this person demonstrate long-term significance? As is, it seems like a fail of WP:SUSTAINED beyond the current controversy over his remarks. He seems likely to fade into obscurity in the medium term, and I don't think BLPs of subjects who are only notable for relatively brief controversies is a good idea. I think the controversy would be better covered as a paragraph in the Radboud University Nijmegen and Academic_freedom#Netherlands articles rather than as a standalone BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh the coverage is absolutely WP:SUSTAINED. Over years already. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply by any standard or stretch of the imagination. The idea that former university teachers can only be notable if they also meet WP:PROF is extremely stiff. Former professors can be notable for anything: activists, politicians, criminals, authors, artists. Literally anything. Pettit is known for activism. He is not different from other activists on Wikipedia. Only better known. gidonb (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Lists of sources by channel: Algmeen Dagblad list, De Gelderlander list, Het Laatste Nieuws list, NOS list, De Telegraaf list, Trouw list De Volkskrant list. Easy to expand this with magazines, more international. I have no clue if this is a BEFORE failure, IDONTLIKEITT, or how this nomination came about. Will keep it at not well based in fact and policy. This part is classic crystal balling, in blatant contradiction to how the media follow his activism, separation from Radboud, and current job search: "He seems likely to fade into obscurity in the medium term". gidonb (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable to open up a deletion discussion if someone associated with the subject opens a thread at BLPN with concerns about the article and questions their notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if it is reasonable. People do it so it might be. It is for sure wasteful of community resources to ask to delete subjects who easily pass the GNG. We are short of attention to the article space. gidonb (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable if proper reason are brought up. All that the IP user on BLPNB had to offer was IDONTLIKEIT cleanup, and too many sources being in Dutch, neither of which are deletion reasons. Cortador (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Cortador, your response follows the P&G. Often being the first to disagree with AfDs, I frequently get such debates under my opinion. Thank you for responding! gidonb (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is a source in Russian. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC).

and no pass of GNG either, despite much special pleading: WP:BLP1E just a flash in the pan. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. gidonb (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Article doesn't comply with notability guidelines. References seem unreliable too. ~~PolishHamster ^yeah 22:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@PolishHamster: Sources used are established and reliable Dutch newspapers, in addition to the Dutch state broadcaster NOS.Vlaemink (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: The Belgian press also paid Pettit a lot of attention. In this domain I have only added the HLN list above. Belgium has so many other channels. Also NL is not nearly exhausted. Even just by the English-language sources, he completely passes the GNG. This class of !voting looks at references in the article in extreme defiance of WP:NEXIST and other P&G. Such !votes next get tallied by closers. gidonb (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Subject pases the WP:GNG, there is no requirement that the article pass WP:NPROF too (as gidonb noted). WP:BLP1E is not applicable, as there have been multiple events in question that garnered significant coverage (WP:What BLP1E is not applies).

His book The Labor of Hope: Meritocracy and Precarity in Egypt also received a number of reviews in reliable sources Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per news coverage and having written a notable book; passes GNG and due to book authorship is not a BLP1E. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Gidionb. Vlaemink (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Easily passes GNG. Whether or not the article passes PROF isn't relevant because notability of academics isn't bound to PROF and PROF alone; they can be notable based on other policies as well. BLP1E doesn't apply either because Pettit has coverage due to a whole host of events, not just one. Major BEFORE failure. Cortador (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I read the NlWiki article in its entirety before opening the AfD and saw the extensive sourcing the article, so I am well aware of the substantial coverage this issue has got in the Netherlands. I disagree that this person has long-term notability even if they have had a substantial burst of coverage over the last year WP:BLP says Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I think it is legitimate disagreement rather than a WP:BEFORE failure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

So sometimes people are in the news because they are the partner of someone. In such cases it makes sense not to allow articles under NOTNEWS. A better way to look at such cases is NOTINHERETED. That is entirely different from people who are famous activists, musicians, criminals, footballers or whatever. Claiming randomly that someone in the medium run (a very specific time span!) will suddenly become less of interest is (odd!) crystal balling. We can't know that. If they are famous now and the coverage is sustained then an article is justified. gidonb (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the point is we should not expect anything. Whether coverage continues should be irrelevant to the AFD. If coverage drops to zero from today onwards, it should not matter because there is already enough to justify an article. That's why we require there is already sustained coverage before we create articles. We won't have anything new but that's fine since we don't need anything new. (This is actually always a problem in BLPs since even if it article makes clear we're only talking about one point in time, many especially subjects feel it's unfair when things have changed years from now and we don't reflect that. But that's a discussion for another time and place.) If you think there is sustained coverage you should be fine with us keeping the article in such a case. If you think we can only keep an article is coverage continues at current or at least some level then I'd suggest we're not yet at sustained coverage level, only when you feel an article is justified whatever happens. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. A person is not an event. Notability is not temporary. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, certainly, but do not confuse that with topicality. This person is notable, even though their topicality will fluctuate. Just like with every (formerly) living person.Vlaemink (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Confusing concepts is never wise. Thanks for pointing out that there are many concepts one may also consider. gidonb (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per BLP1E and WP:ROTM. I'm concerned about this becoming a dangerous precedent, because this is a terrible case. Lots of people get into trouble at work and, since at least 2005, we have been avoiding any defamation against living people. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian: 'Run of the mill'-cases do not get sustained coverage by Dutch national news sources, all of them reputable and trustworthy. There's a difference between getting 'in trouble at work' due to a faux pas, mistake or coincidence and being a (controversial) public political organizer and activist alongside your academic career. Vlaemink (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no reliable evidence that he is an "organiser" - activist yes, but not organiser. Many people take part in activism. I also feel the article reads like a piece of defamation and was quite shocked by it. For example, the article fails to mention that there was a petition signed by 540 university staff supporting him - names and positions provided. If the article remains it would need a lot of editing. ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, but your opinion does not matter here, reliable and valid sources do. You might personally dispute or refuse to believe that Pettit was an organizer, but this is what reliable and credible sources do state. You are also misinformed on a petition signed by "540 university staff members", the petition you're most likely referring to was in fact signed by 491 people; of which around 200 were linked to the Radboud University, most of them students (the Radboud University has a staff of about 5500 and 25.000 students) . By comparison, a petition calling for Pettits dismissal garnered 12000 signatures within two days. You seem to think that the controversies involving Pettit were some local, minor events. The Netherlands has 18 million inhabitants, it takes a particular amount of effort and notability for people to be openly discussed by ministers, to have questions asked about you in parliament and to be featured on the 8 o'clock news. Vlaemink (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The up-to-date version of the petition has 540 signatures. There is only one reference to him being a possible "organiser" - a reported allegation by single indivdual who may have had a grudge against him (ref. 6). There is also no reference to a published letter from jewish staff and students wrote supporting him, and the article still states at the beginning that he was dismissed from Radboud, which is also not correct (see ref 4). ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am doubtful that we are going to get a consensus on this one, but another week won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. "Their citation record is pretty weak" grossly understates the matter: his citation record is almost non-existent. Any decision to keep needs to come from his political activity, for which he appears to be just another rabble rouser. Athel cb (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, but is he a notable rabble-rouser? Has he received sustained coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources? Will he be covered in 5 years? Or has his 15 minutes of fame ended? ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources listed in the article, are all either major Dutch and Belgian newspapers, Dutch parliamentary records and/or the Dutch state broadcaster; which have commented on his controversial actions continuously for about two years. So it's beyond any reasonable doubt that he's received sustained coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. To speculate about where this person will be in 5 years is just that: speculation; but to describe the amount of attention this person has received as merely representing '15 minutes of fame' is grossly misrepresenting the level and quality of coverage.Vlaemink (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I think the BLPN noticeboard is correct to call this an attack page, and there is a lack of SIGCOV. Note that the Harry Pettit#Early life, education and career has no citations, the source in that graf on the Dutch page is an interview with the subject. The bulk of the article is a controversies section disguised with alternative labels, how can this possibly become balanced? Since there are comments here from IP user/s, I want to note that the content here should be covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic remedies.—BrechtBro (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The BLPN noticeboard did not call this an 'attack page', an IP claiming (,) to be the subjects mother did. Now if true (which is a big if) then I would understand a mother's worries about this article, as it touches upon a number of highly controversial issues in addition to the academic career. But the controversies listed, have received sustained reporting by reliable and national Dutch and Belgian media. His actions and comments have been discussed in Dutch parliament. His comments and actions let to his firing from two major universities and led to the involvement of the Dutch minister of education. The article is perfectly balanced, in that it describes Pettit's actions, comments and their consequences factually. It's unrealistic to expect an article equally (50/50) representing the views of Pettit's supporters and opponents. Vlaemink (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion itself may be internally balanced, but it UNDUE in the biography. Under headings titled for universities, there are one and a half sentences on his academic career and seven paragraphs discussing controversies. WP:BLP states, "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced." This is a WP:BLPBALANCE problem: the article is a coat rack to discuss the controversy rather than a biography of the subject. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources and information present in the article are portrayed in a NPOV and come from valid and reliable sources. While I agree that the level of detail could (possibly) pose a problem, that's not a problem of notability and it doesn't make this an attack page (as you stated above); WP:BLPN clearly says that an attack page is "unsourced and negative in tone". This article simply doesn' t meet those criteria.Vlaemink (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@ Vlaemink you make the same mistakes again - the earliest reference given about him is 11th March '25 - so just over one year, and he was not "fired" from Radboud (as also stated in para 1 of the article). The article is not factually accurate, facts that are in his favour have been downplayed or omitted and those that are accurate are reported in prejudiced way.

I don't know is it's relevant to mention here but Dr Pettit has also been included now in a Wikipedia article: "Antisemitism in Contemporary Belgium" where he never lived or worked. In addition he strongly denies being an anti-semite, which again is also not mentioned in the current article we are dealing with. I left a note in the "Talk" section of the article about Antisemitism in Belgium but no action has been taken and there has been no response. Many thanks. ~2026-19089-72 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. What's being discussed here, is this persons notability. I'm not responsible for what's added to "Antisemitism in contemporary Belgium", an article I've never read let alone edited; and if you believe the article contains inaccuracies; or even prejudice ... you're free to address this, either in the article itself or on its talkpage. Furthermore, I'm aware that (you claim that) Pettit is your son, but I will explicitly state that the article doesn't call Pettit an antisemite; it mentions that certain commentators and organizations have characterized his statements as such. That's rather different.Vlaemink (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

Ryan Berryman

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

Declined PROD but that was my mistake - I should have nominated for speedy deletion under A7 - no indication of importance. Non-notable university administrator. Orange sticker (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sportspeople, and New Mexico. Orange sticker (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Ryan Berryman is a notable university administrator. He is the athletic director at the University of New Mexico. ~2026-15013-87 (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Keep SK1 nom has provided no rationale for the AfD nom; a CSD would have been even more inappropriate. A quick WP:Before indicates some coverage, no indication that the nom did a proper search. I think the nom is a new, overenthusiastic WP:NPP who is being too hasty.Ldm1954 (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Can you show me which WP:N criteria this person meets? 6c of WP:NPROF states Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). I carried out WP:BEFORE and could only find WP:ROTM "man accepts job" type announcements in the press, nothing to indicate the subject had achieved anything remarkable in their field. This reads like a WP:RESUME of a non-notable member of university staff. Orange sticker (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
He isn’t just a random university staff member. Ryan Berryman is the Vice President and Director of Athletics at the University of New Mexico, which is the person in charge of the entire athletic department. That’s the top leadership role for athletics at a Division I university. College athletics today especially at the Division I level are major parts of universities and involve large budgets, NIL programs, media deals, and conference relationships. The athletic director oversees all of that. Also, many athletic directors at comparable Division I schools have their own Wikipedia pages, because the role is a major leadership position within university athletics, not a lower-level administrative job like a dean or department chair. ~2026-15013-87 (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Can you objectively demonstrate how they meet WP:ANYBIO or if there is a specialised notability category that applies here? He doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH and there does not seem to be any WP:SIGCOV of his career as a director, coach or athlete. Orange sticker (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a pass of WP:NPROF here, and in particular I don't think athletic directors are presumed notable (for that matter, I don't think that they are academics in the sense of NPROF). No opinion on possible GNG notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak delete. CSD is definitely inapplicable but we should still discuss notability. There appears to be no grounds for NPROF notability here so we should go with GNG. There is news coverage of him, but it appears to all be centered on him being hired as athletic director (and therefore also leaving his old job), so I think there is a WP:BIO1E issue here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Marginal Keep. There was previous coverage when he left UNM in 2024 and moved the University of Washington. He was also surprisingly influential as a student trustee back in the 2010s, a position to which he was appointed by the governor.(ProQuest 1778395740, ProQuest 1785201945, ProQuest 1829049926, ). There was an article when he was named associate athletic director at UNM in 2019 (ProQuest 2231518682). Jahaza (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep - arguably, VP of athletics is more important for enrollment management than any other administrator, since sports are essential to admissions to a selective university today. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Reads like a resume and doesn't really explain why this person is notable. Doesn't pass PROF, doesn't seem to have led any "dynasties" in university sports, just a simple administrative job (as it reads currently). Coverage above is fine, but I'm not sure the position is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
So Berryman, who has more athletic department experience, should have his page deleted while Graham Rossini at Arizona State, who has less experience, gets to have one? That seems like an inconsistent and biased application of notability standards. Jmcnicol05 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm inclined to nominated Graham Rossini for deletion too, although that article does make some attempt to attribute some reported achievements to his career. Simply being successful in one's job does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Orange sticker (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
He doesn't need to meet WP:ANYBIO, which is an alternative to WP:BASIC. He's been covered repeatedly in secondary sources, first as a student trustee, then when he departed NM for the job at University of Washington and finally when he returned to NM. Jahaza (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Why is his job at the athletic department notable? Did he sign the next Lebron James? Did he lead the school to multiple victories, creating a dynasty? I only see an article about a person doing their job, nothing to show how this is a notable position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A consensus on whether the individual is notable has not yet formed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

Academics and educators

Michael Peters (psychologist)

Akintoye Akindele

Kayode Akinsola

Yih-Teen Lee

Minerva Mena

Helyeh Doutaghi

Ole Paulsen

Taskin Padir

Ali Sharifi Zarchi

George Keduolhou Angami

Patrick Verkooijen

Gulnaz Dadashova

Saj-nicole A. Joni

Richard Romm

Shahin Kabir

Parveen Azam Ali

Vladimir de Semir

Alexandre Baril

Stacie Pettyjohn

Harry Pettit

Ryan Berryman

Proposed deletions

Related Articles