Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

Himalayan University

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

Not much here apart from directory listings. No significant coverage could also be found when I did a before. Non notable university Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, Schools, India, and Arunachal Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Zhang Wuhua

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

I am not quite sure about the subject’s notability. He may have engaged in public activities, but being the founder of an education service and having a role in a minor political party would not by themselves make him notable per WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Plus, while I AGF, I am also doubtful about the reliability of the cited news agencies. For example, Shanghai Jing'an appears to be a regional government portal, which I do not think can establish his notability as a secondary source. In that sense, the subject may also fail WP:GNG. (There was also an account whose only apparent purpose was to engage with articles related to him and remove the tags, while the creator has very few contributions and only reappeared to create the article, which makes me suspect a COI.) Htanaungg (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Education, and China. Htanaungg (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Of the six sources, 2 mentioned the subject once (1, 3), 2 were about the subject's company, not him (4, 5), 2 seem to pass WP:SIGCOV but I cannot make any assessment about WP:RS due to the language barrier. A search for additional sources did not yield results. Vegantics (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Erin Leitao

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

Does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria at WP:NPROF JMWt (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. JMWt (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. She may become notable in the next ten, or even five, years, but she's not there yet (h = 22). Athel cb (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Chemistry, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete, as a newly appointed associate professor with an h-factor of 22 and 1.7K cites in a high citation field she is quite some distance from a pass of WP:NPROF, it is WP:TOOSOON. Her awards are junior, and her citations/year are not increasing so I see no mitigating factors/reasons to keep the page. Revisit in 5+ years.Ldm1954 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that her citation record is promising but not yet convincing for WP:PROF#C1 and the awards too minor for #C2. There seems to be nothing else that would make a case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I agree she does not satisfy WP:NPROF, but since the nomination I've improved the article with more sources, and (in addition to papers by her and a couple of institutional profile pages) we now have the following: three Radio New Zealand interviews, a profile and a news item in the magazine Idealog, a New Zealand Herald interview, a 1News (TV) story, a L'Oréal-UNESCO follow-up interview, some coverage in a newspaper (Stuff) story, a Royal Society of New Zealand news item, and a bio on the IUPAC website. These are all independent reliable sources, and none are trivial mentions. This seems like significant enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Despite these additions I am still leaning delete. The Royal Society of New Zealand article is basically a press release that is offered to every recipient of a Marsden Fund grant, biographies on IUPAC and University of Auckland are not necessarily independent, nor are interviews (by definition both of these classes of sources are primary). -- Recon rabbit 13:42, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Your ref. 18 says "L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science. 10 January 2018. Retrieved 16 April 2026." Today is the 16th April, and when I go to the link I get "Article not found". What is going on? Athel cb (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The quality of the sources is not the problem. The problem is that her achievement as an inorganic chemist doesn't yet reach the level needed. Athel cb (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hassan Muhammad

AfDs for this article:

(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 22:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Does not pass Prof or GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC).
Delete - Does not pass WP:PROF. Unable to find any additional coverage. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Tamo Mibang

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

Not much here to merit an article. Sources are not neutral, and most are just obituaries or regular mentions after death. No significant coverage Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, India, and Arunachal Pradesh. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep Vice-chancellor of the Rajiv Gandhi University seems good enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC. The university seems to be a major one, besides being the oldest in a state. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The relevant WP:PROF criterion that could plausibly support keep is C6, the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution. A vice chancellor only nominally qualifies under that criterion if it is the highest academic post, but at Rajiv Gandhi University that is apparently the Chancellor. This seems to be a close call, I admit, but lack of notable coverage outside this bare fact seems to cut against notability under WP:PROF. The notability rules there are largely because it is often difficult to assess notability of academics, because of specialization of research and teaching, etc. Since the subject's only claim to notability is vice-chancellor, however, I think the balance tips in favor of deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
At most Indian universities the vice chancellor is the highest-level administrative post and the chancellor is a ceremonial position. Do you have evidence that RGU is exceptional in this regard? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
The article lists a chancellor, but if that is ceremonial I guess I could be persuaded that the article might be kept. Seems like a silly basis for an article though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, I would not consider RGU a major academic institution under WP:PROF. I n a way... "only university in the state" reflects geographic monopoly, not academic prestige. Plus sources are almost entirely regional Arunachal outlets plus death notices. No national academic press, no coverage of his scholarship outside the northeast. This cuts against independent notability even under other PROF criteria. RGU just has a small regional footprint, and serves a small, sparsely populated state. Compare to VCs of Delhi University, BHU, or Hyderabad... institutions that are unambiguously "major." So I dont think wiki guidelines of WP:PROF applies here Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Well said. I agree, it's a weird IAR sort of case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Robin Gianattassio-Malle

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

Fails notability. Duck Duck Go search, Google search, Google News search, Google Books search, and newspapers.com search fail to find anything more than passing mentions. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related AfD discussions. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Note that this appears to have been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since April 2011–and this is an article that was created in March 2011. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Radio, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Lacks independent coverage, hasn't produced any notable movies. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Alexey Mikhaylov (economist)

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

Per WP:NPROF: No obvious notability except, possibly, multiple retractions: see Михайлов, Алексей Юрьевич (1987) [ru]. A nomination for deletion in Russian Wiki Википедия:К удалению/29 января 2025#Михайлов,_Алексей_Юрьевич_(1987) [ru] is dangling since Jan 2025. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep, ~~verging on Speedy Keep,~~ then remove the masses of bloat and peacock. Based upon his GS profile he has 11.5K cites and an h-factor of 62, so passes WP:NPROF. If the nom withdraws the AfD (as I expect a SNOW) ping me and I can clean it -- I am reluctant to do this while it is at AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. It appears that the main claim to notability is through WP:PROF#C1 and heavy citations, but there are also serious concerns with the authorship integrity of his publications that have led to at least three retractions . Additionally, his GS profile shows some publications with strange topics considering his main interests to be the economics of climate change and energy supply: emotional development in preschoolers? Polymer film coatings? With this as background I would want to see more than primary/non-independent sourcing both for his prominence as a researcher and for the retractions before allowing this as a WP:BLP. In short, I think biographies of researchers for whom we have believable evidence of malfeasance should be held to a higher standard, especially when that alleged malfeasance undermines the claim to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
David, while the topic range is odd, if you check the address it is the same. While I note the retractions, these are because the corresponding author stated that they were not affiliated with the paper, or the journal could not verify them. While I agree that is dubious, it is not major academic dishonesty in terms of fabrication of data, misrepresentation etc. I think we have to be careful about WP:NPOV in our judging of the authorship issue. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Some researchers really do have disparate collections of interests. Some researchers have odd citation topics because they buy authorships on papers that they did not contribute to and are not in their actual expertise. I am not doubting that the GS profile really does list papers whose authors include the subject of our article. Rather, this is part of the evidence of a dubious pattern of authorship, for which the retractionwatch listing of retractions specifically made for the reason of authorship integrity problems is much stronger evidence. And if we have reason to believe that some of those authorships may have been illegitimate then we have less reason to rely purely on those authorships as a rationale for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally the three retractions listed in the database are all in Scientific Reports. There are also two in Energy Exploration & Exploitation, one in Frontiers in Environmental Science, one in Environmental Research Communications, and one in Evolutionary Intelligence all for reasons of authorship integrity. The Evolutionary Intelligence retraction notice specifically discusses purchased authorships and subversion of the peer review process. Another paper of his in Investment Management and Financial Innovations was retracted for plagiarism. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but I remain enough of a Brit that I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I have zero tolerance for deliberate fabrication or duplication of existing work, which we know occurs and rarely gets caught; I do not view this as being as major as either of those. My personal opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm certainly not going to commit to an opinion on whether Mikhaylov is personally responsible for academic malfeasance or merely too trusting in his coauthors. However, I think this makes it dubious to argue for notability purely through citation counts, and it also leaves us with a BLP dilemma that deletion would avoid: do we dishonestly pretend there is no problem with his portfolio even though there clearly is one, or do we use primary evidence for that problem that may well not meet our BLP standards? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
See also the article and line 222 ("Global Indicators of Sustainable Development: Evaluation of the Influence of the Human Development Index on Consumption and Quality of Energy" ) of its supplementary material . Neodiprion demoides (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment I read 3 of the materials science papers which are withing my realm of incompetence. While I would not write them, they appear to be decent, I have seen much worse. I can see a rationale for his inclusion, as the economics of a particular technology really matters, and that is where he seems to have some expertise. (As an example, there are papers on using carbon-nanotubes to reinforce asphalt for roads which, in terms of $$$$, is absurd.) I will remove the "Speedy Keep" from my comment, but I still am not fully convinced. (I could not reach the SM above, or it was in Russian when I looked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete The only potential path to notability would be through WP:PROF#C1, on the basis of citations, and we have reason to believe that the citation counts may not be meaningful. This is not a statement that Mikhaylov is personally culpable for academic misconduct, or anything like that. It's just a recognition that any topic needs some indication of notability to be considered notable, and here we have no indicator that we can rely on. We commonly discount citation numbers for middle authors on massively co-authored papers, or for work done as a graduate student: the citation number might be big, but we have no way to know if the individual author's contribution was truly significant. This is a more extreme instance of the same problem: there are too many question marks floating around the citation counts for us to base a judgment upon them. The safe course of action, particularly where WP:BLP is concerned, is not to have an article. When in doubt, write nothing. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Eusebius Juma Mukhwana

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

Fails WP:GNG, sourced to a database of his own publications and to google scholar hits. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Kenya. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Melanie Walker

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

Not notable - coverage only mentions her in passing or in unreliable podcasts. I couldn't identify a sufficient redirect target, but would be open to one if one exists. In addition, there are BLP concerns here given that the bulk of the article concerns accusations about her collaboration with Jeffrey Epstein. Katzrockso (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLP1E, all available coverage is related to Epstein. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply because condition #2 is not met, as Melanie Walker is not a "low-profile individual". Walker held high-level jobs at two important institutions: the Gates Foundation and the World Bank (--> "eminence"), and published an oped about her own project in the influential newspaper The Guardian (--> "appearances and performances". Hispalois (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Strong Keep I agree that WP:BLP1E does not apply. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and a significant number of sources indicate that her connection is in the Epstein files. Sources include Politico, Fox Business, New York Magazine, Rolling Stone -- see this search. I do not understand the noms claims that the only mention is in "unreliable podcasts". For reference some of the reports connect her to both Bill Gates and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I think there is enough coverage for WP:42, and the page is restrained enough that I do not see BLP issues.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
N.B., she does not (as yet) pass WP:NPROF, but that does not matter. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
@Ldm1954 and Hispalois: What about WP:BIO1E, which can apply to someone like her? George Ho (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
For WP:BLP1E three conditions should not be met. She has a reasonable profile independent of Epstein, condition 2, her role is well documented and significant, condition 3. Hence she is not a BLP1E from 2 of the 3 conditions. WP:BIO1E is essentially the same but includes deceased people. It has the phrase "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". To me BIO1E is also not appropriate. This is a tricky one, but I do not see any basis for a policy-based delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"Fox Business"? Perhaps might wanna read a thread about treating Fox Business as similar to Fox News (WP:FOXNEWS). In this case, stuff about her and her association with Epstein may be more political, so perhaps leave Fox Business out. That leaves us Politico, New York Magazine, and Rolling Stone. George Ho (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
~~Lean delete or Weak neutral~~ – If BLP1E doesn't apply, then perhaps WP:BIO1E should if she's not a low-profile person. ~~Furthermore, she probably fails WP:SUSTAINED if there aren't reliable sources fixing WP:BLP issues, not limited to BLP1E itself, and helping the article comply with WP:NOTNEWS~~ ~~and avoid WP:GAMING~~, i.e. some attempt to blur the line(s) between an encyclopedia and a (dying?) newspaper, blog, or whatever publication-related. George Ho (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC); edited, 03:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
N.B., there are stacks of reliable sources as both Hispalois and I have pointed out, particularly very recent ones based upon the Epstein files. What WP:BLP issues do you think there are? What WP:GAMING are you alluding to, that is a non-trivial statement, and by who? Ldm1954 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
...All right... I'll backtrack the GAMING accusation then. Indeed, it refers to user conduct, but I've yet to see one, so I won't go there. Guess I shouldn't have said GAMING. I just don't know how else to describe or which other policy to verify the blurriness besides WP:PAG, despite. Furthermore, my vote that I'm striking out isn't that strong. Perhaps I shouldn't have voted in the first place, should I? Besides, anything/anyone Epstein-associated or Epstein-related would be too ugly to debate further for me. George Ho (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I just jumped in and thought I can make strong arguments. Perhaps my arguments were at this point too weak for strong deletion, right? Gotta research further before making a strong stance.... George Ho (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep reluctantly – Honestly, this topic is still too ugly to make me wanna edit much, but looks like I have no choice after reading what Hispola cited. Indeed, WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN should apply. So should WP:NTEMP. In other words, the article quality needs improvement, IMO, but at least there are reliable sources out there verifying her potential non-temporary notability. Does she comply with WP:GNG? Uncertain, honestly. Nonetheless, she probably meets WP:SUSTAINED because... well, the borderline of WP:NOTNEWS (which has been discussed recently) has been blurred to this point. George Ho (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, role in Epstein case is not significant (e.g. not a main perp and her role is not large), there is not other coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Nicolás Mangieri Cauterucce

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

no indicators of notability nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 11:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Venezuela. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 11:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete He may be notable as the President of Universidad Nueva Esparta, but I don't think the university is major enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Dan V. Palcu Rolier

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

As an autobiography, this deserves extra scrutiny in order to establish notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Romania, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - I think there's potential for notability here, but the article is far too full of promotional and unreferenced/original research. The subject would be best served going through WP:REQUEST per WP:AUTOPROBLEM.
comment Seeing lots of WP:AISIGNS here, for the record. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 15:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I wondered a little about draftification to force removal of the vast autobiographical bloat, but based upon his citations he is many years from a pass of WP:NPROF, it is WP:TOOSOON -- an h-factor of 17 and 1K cites is way too low. He has made a good start, and his citations/year are showing a healthy annual increase, but it will easily be 5 years before he qualifies.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

David Cohen (lawyer)

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

David Cohen (lawyer) – Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Article has carried {{autobiography}}, {{peacock}}, and {{not notable}} tags since January 2021 and March 2026 respectively, with no improvement.

No source in the article provides significant independent coverage of Cohen as a biographical subject:

Self-published sources: Multiple citations are to CanadaVisa.com, the subject's own company website. These fail WP:INDEPENDENT.
Directory listings: Bar of Quebec, Law Society of Ontario, and AQAADI entries are routine professional directories, not significant coverage.
Expert quotes in media: The New York Times, CNN, Telegraph, CTV News, and The Walrus citations are articles about Canadian immigration policy in which Cohen is quoted as one of several expert sources. None profile Cohen as a subject. Per WP:GNG, being quoted does not constitute significant coverage.
Parliamentary testimony: Primary source records of committee appearances. Not independent coverage.
CIC News tribute: CIC News is operated by the same corporate entity as CanadaVisa (Cohen's firm). Fails WP:INDEPENDENT.
Droit-inc obituary: One brief independent obituary in a French-language legal news site. This is the only source that approaches significant independent coverage, but a single source does not satisfy WP:GNG.
Globe and Mail and Toronto Star articles discuss the CanadaVisa platform, not Cohen as a biographical subject.

The article reads as promotional content (tagged {{autobiography}} and {{peacock}} since 2021). Categories are inflated beyond what sources support (e.g., "Canadian civil rights activists", "Immigration law scholars", "Canadian political commentators" with no sourcing for any of these characterizations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks19923 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete — Concur with nominator. Article was created by a paid CanadaVisa employee with a conflict of interest and the sourcing analysis above demonstrates it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Expert quotes in general immigration news coverage do not constitute significant independent coverage of the subject as a biographical subject. In2can1 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This is extremely overdependent on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that are not support for notability (directory entries and content self-published by directly affiliated non-media organizations), and the few reliable sources are just quoting him as a provider of soundbite rather than profiling him as a subject of coverage and analysis. That's not how notability is established, at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with the votes that came in just before here here. The issue is that none of the cited sources provide independent biographical coverage of Cohen himself. The media citations are stories where he appears as one person quoted. Not WP:GNG-satisfying coverage and the CanadaVisa / CIC are corporate-affiliated and fail. Four years of maintenance tags with no sourcing improvement suggests there just isn't much to do re: improving or strengthening sources, and there's not any new news coming. 30thStreet (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Dare Ehigie

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

Vice president of a non-notable organization. Sources do not show notability and neither does a search for his name. 🄻 🄰 16:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 16:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Gold Sunday Chukwuemeka

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

Not a notable person. Sourced entirely to non-independent sources. Didn't find anything better through searching. The school he is chancellor is currently nominated for deletion and appears non-notable as well. 🄻 🄰 16:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, Religion, and Nigeria. 🄻 🄰 16:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep or redirect to Dennis Osadebay University Africamatters (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Gao Xing

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

Article Deletion Nomination Summary • Article Name: Gao Xing (Chinese amateur astronomer) • Initial Observation: I noticed the article had a notability warning tag since 2020. • Research Performed: I carried out the WP:BEFORE steps by searching for the subject on Google and Baidu. I found that while he is mentioned in news about astronomical discoveries, these are routine announcements rather than in-depth biographical reports. • Reason for Deletion: The article fails the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). There are no independent, reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of his life or career. • Status: I have officially started the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process to let the Wikipedia community decide on its inclusion. Lyujinshuo (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Zhang, Jingjing 张晶晶 (2017-10-20). "逐星人高兴：第一个获天文学领域奥斯卡的中国人" [The Stargazer Rejoices: The First Chinese Person to Win the "Oscar of Astronomy"]. ScienceNet (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2026-04-11. Retrieved 2026-04-11.
  The article notes: "高兴是一名不折不扣的逐星人，圈内人将高兴称为“劳模”，辛勤的劳动收获了累累硕果。迄今为止，高兴发现了彗星C/2008 C1（陈-高彗星）、彗星P/2009 L2（杨-高彗星）以及彗星C/2015 F5（斯万-星明彗星），还有约40颗超新星，一颗本星系新星，近10颗位于M31和M33的新星，4颗掠日彗星以及近百颗小行星。新疆的夜空干净清澈，能见度极高，这给了高兴上佳的观测条件。结束学校一天的课程之后，他便急急往家赶，晚8点准时打开望远镜准备观测。通过远程操纵星明天文台的望远镜，获得数据，然后分享给天文爱好者QQ群里的朋友们进行分析、追踪。"
  From Google Translate: "Gao Xing is a bona fide "star-chaser." Within the community, he is affectionately dubbed the "Model Worker"—a testament to the diligent labor that has yielded a bountiful harvest of discoveries. To date, Gao Xing has discovered Comet C/2008 C1 (Comet Chen-Gao), Comet P/2009 L2 (Comet Yang-Gao), and Comet C/2015 F5 (Comet SWAN-Xingming), as well as approximately 40 supernovae, one nova within our own galaxy, nearly a dozen novae located in M31 and M33, four sun-grazing comets, and nearly a hundred asteroids. The night skies over Xinjiang are pristine and crystal-clear, offering exceptional visibility—conditions that have provided Gao Xing with superb opportunities for observation. After finishing his teaching duties for the day, he rushes home, and at 8:00 PM sharp, he powers up his telescope to begin observing. By remotely controlling the telescopes at the Xingming Observatory, he acquires data, which he then shares with friends in various astronomy enthusiast QQ groups for analysis and tracking."
2. Chen, Liang (2010-10-15). "To infinity and beyond". China Daily. Factiva CHNDHK0020101015e6af0000l.
  The article notes: "Gao Xing is a physics teacher by day and a comet hunter by night. The amateur astronomer is one of the country's few comet hunters and one of the best. For the past three years, the teacher at Urumqi No 1 Senior Middle School in Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region has discovered two comets, five novas and a potential supernova. Comet C/2008 C1 (Chen-Gao), discovered by Gao Xing and Chen Tao, another comet hunter from Jiangsu, was the only new comet recorded by amateur astronomers, in 2008. P/2009 L2 (Yang-Gao), which he found with Yang Rui from Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, on June 15, 2009, was one of four comets discovered by amateur astronomers that year. Because of the two discoveries, he became the only mainland Chinese person to win the Edgar Wilson Award twice. The annual prize of $20,000 (134,000 yuan) split among the award winners, is given to amateur astronomers who use amateur equipment and have discovered one or more new comets. The 36-year-old didn't make his discoveries the old-fashioned way - peering through a telescope at night, hunting for faint smudges that no one had seen before. Instead, he has his own observatory, built in 2006, which is the first of its kind in the mainland. Located at Nanshan Base of National Astronomical Observatories, about 70 km south of Urumqi, his automated, computer controlled telescopes and cameras have been scanning the sky in a relentless search for near-Earth asteroids, novas, supernovas and comets. ... His love of stargazing was nurtured by the beautiful Urumqi night skies of his childhood. He was head of the astronomy club at college and after graduating he befriended some of the region's best amateur stargazers, including Zhou Xingming (1965-2004)."
3. "China Scene: West". 新疆日报 [Xinjiang Daily]. 2009-06-18. Archived from the original on 2012-10-15. Retrieved 2026-04-11 – via People's Daily.
  The article notes: "A high school teacher in Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, became the first person to locate an undiscovered star in the galaxy. Gao Xing, senior teacher at the Urumqi No 1 high school, built his own observatory on a mountain outside the city in 2007. He found a new star in Sagittarius in the Galaxy's central part on Feb 26 at night with his partner Sun Guoyou. Gao reported his new discovery to the International Astronomical Union on May 29 and got the identification. Gao's newly discovered star is entitled V5582 SGR II by IAU."
4. Hong, Yu; Liang, Jun, eds. (2021-05-25). "Amateur observatory makes its way to the big league". People's Daily. ProQuest 2531499280. Archived from the original on 2025-04-12. Retrieved 2026-04-11.
  The article notes: "But according to Gao Xing, a co-founder of the Xingming Observatory, one of the key purposes of the program is to encourage more people to take part in it. ... Gao Xing, who is also a physics teacher at a local middle school in Urumqi, is responsible for maintaining and upgrading the equipment at the observatory."
5. Suo, Zizhi 索子鸷 (2017-08-08). "乌鲁木齐市一中物理老师获业余天文成就奖第一个获奖的中国人" [Physics Teacher at Urumqi No. 1 High School Wins Amateur Achievement Award in Astronomy: The First Chinese Recipient]. 亚心网 [Yaxin] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2026-04-11. Retrieved 2026-04-11 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "虽然是一名物理老师,自1990年起,高兴便与天文结下了不解之缘,在20余年的时间里,高兴始终执着地做同一件事——观测天象,在他所带的天文社团里,很多学生都深受熏陶也加入到了天文爱好者的队伍。2007年,高兴老师在新疆天文台及同好们的帮助下,在新疆天文台乌鲁木齐南山观测站建立了自己的天文观测台,并用它发现了彗星C/2008C1(陈-高彗星),彗星P/2009L2(杨-高彗星)以及彗星C/2015F5(斯万-星明彗星)。他还发现约40颗超新星,一颗本星系新星,近10颗位于M31和M33的新星,4颗掠日彗星以及近百颗小行星。"
  From Google Translate: "Although he is a physics teacher by profession, Gao Xing has shared an inseparable bond with astronomy since 1990. Over the course of more than two decades, he has remained steadfastly dedicated to a single pursuit: observing celestial phenomena. Through the astronomy club he leads, many students have been deeply inspired and have subsequently joined the ranks of amateur astronomers. In 2007, with the assistance of the Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory and fellow enthusiasts, Mr. Gao established his own private observatory at the Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory's Urumqi Nanshan Station. Utilizing this facility, he went on to discover Comet C/2008C1 (Comet Chen-Gao), Comet P/2009L2 (Comet Yang-Gao), and Comet C/2015F5 (Comet Swan-Xingming). He also discovered approximately 40 supernovae, one nova within our own galaxy, nearly 10 novae located in M31 and M33, four sungrazing comets, and nearly a hundred asteroids."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gao Xiang (simplified Chinese: 高兴; traditional Chinese: 高興) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Cunard's sources and the nomination statement looks AI-generated. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 16:37, 16 April 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Kenneth Anand

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

WWD article appears to be an interview. Other cited sources are routine mentions as is expected for any lawyer representing big clients. Fails WP:GNG. GarciaH1978 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: very little significant, independent coverage. StartOkayStop (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Articles 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 19 are interviews as well. Also his status as an internationally recognized author and professor elevates him beyond what "any lawyer representing big clients" might be. Lawreporter71 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:INTERVIEWS are not acceptable on Wikipedia. He is an adjunct professor, which is not an indicator of notability. GarciaH1978 (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The majority of the sources, in my opinion, do not establish notability. Interviews or profiles alone are not independent, primary, and reliable sources as per the WP:GNG; see WP:Interviews#Notability. Some of the sources are a just a passing mention . As you might know, writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged, and original research is also present in the article. I'm not opposed to retracting my delete !vote if coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources emerges, but at a minimum, the reflist needs cleaned up, and the original research needs removed. StartOkayStop (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete Authored one book, which is not enough for WP:NAUTHOR, adjunct professors are very unlikely to pass under WP:NPROF. Per discussion above, GNG passing coverage also appears to be absent. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:17, 16 April 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.

Yousef Alhorr

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

Most sources in this article cover the organization (GORD) rather than the person himself, which does not establish personal notability per WP:BIO. فيصل (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar. فيصل (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete - Looking at the sources, there is coverage about Gulf Organisation for Research and Development (GORD), but not much about this individual. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Don't think that's correct. Most sources do feature the individual as a key player (being the sole founder of the organizations linked). Perhaps the discussion should be about how to make use of the latest sources and interviews featuring him, as opposed to contesting the old ones. Syedafarwazahra (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

Contesting the nomination for deletion
The nominator suggests the coverage focuses primarily on the Gulf Organization for Research & Development. However, the sources confirm they meet the requirements for individual notability for the following reasons:
1. Global Thought Leadership: A review of available digital records and search results reveals a consistent pattern of his quotes, technical insights, and leadership being cited by independent entities worldwide. Many of his exclusive interviews (including CNBC and Carbon Pulse) show up on google search even though they aren't mentioned in this Wikipedia page.
2. Direct Attribution: The cited articles explicitly credit the Chairman's leading role in the projects and scientific contributions mentioned. As editors and academic writers, we maintain that these references are valid secondary sources that verify his individual impact.
3. Source Validity: These references serve to verify his significant contributions to [mention field, e.g., sustainability/climate science] and his role as a key figure in regional infrastructure developments.
FarahMatraji (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Has AI been used to write this comment? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe the answer is yes. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Most sources do feature the individual as a key player (being the sole founder of the organizations linked). Perhaps the discussion should be about how to make use of the latest sources and interviews featuring him, as opposed to contesting the old ones. Syedafarwazahra (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dtqx1dEAAAAJ&hl=en Syedafarwazahra (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
~~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)
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)
I will let people get to a consensus, so striking off my withdrawal comment. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Just getting some coverage upon death does not make person notable. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Delete - Significant coverage outside local coverage is entirely missing. Agletarang (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Flyingphoenixchips, Request you to go through the current changes, since your nomination. I have improved the article and have added 12 more reliable, reputed and independent secondary sources, which carried indepth articles (NOT a one para mentions) on the subject. The sustained coverage includes from 2017 to 2026. At least half a dozen detailed articles are about his scholarship and before his death... (so not oneevent -death). The publications include, NOT just local coverage, (@Agletarang though GNG guidelines does not deny notability for any article just because they are not in english), they come from Outlook India, Mint, The Week, BBC Marathi and Times of India. Even Loksatta, TV9 Marathi, Free Press Jouornal and Maharashtra Times are reliable media outlets. His books and over 45 research papers are NO "Fools Gold" either (to use your new article) as discussed in more than 3 reputed sources. So I request you to go through and check once again if you may reconsider your nomination. I did this article in good faith... Thanks! Davidindia (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Hey @DavidindiaReference #1 is not independent, I will suggest finding a better source. A handful of the 2026 sources are obituaries, which can be formulaic, though obituaries in major outlets do count toward WP:GNG. But I will say there is enough here to keep the article and establish notability. Great Work! Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Thanks! Will work on it!! Davidindia (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Re-opened in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator per WP:REOPEN, as a speedy keep or withdrawal is inappropriate when there are extant delete votes per WP:SKCRIT 1.3. Please leave this for someone uninvolved to judge. Left guide (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The article has been significantly improved by @Davidindia and there are definitely multiple sources to establish notability. Its a Keep from me Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep per expansion by @Davidindia Nighfidelity (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: I am the creator of the article, a red link taken from the Deaths in 2026 list. Not sure, if I need to explain everything again once it is relisted, but I will do it lest the article is deleted.

Have substantially improved the article adding 12 more reliable, secondary sources from mainstream media. Only one source, the first one, from the Bio's publisher is used to support the content, that is his DoB. There are five reliable references which talk about the subject, before the death news. All other sources, are detailed feature articles are obits about the subject. Some of the comments supporting deletion were made without proper backing of the guidelines/policies. It has WP:SIGCOV and easily passes GNG. Also after improvements, the nominator has withdrawn his nomination. Thanks Davidindia (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

~~Keep~~: Keep as per the reasons given above. I also feel the nomination and many of the delete comments, are not based on policy. Request the closing Admin to see the current page with significant improvements after nomination. thanks Davidindia (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

Academics and educators

Himalayan University

Zhang Wuhua

Erin Leitao

Hassan Muhammad

Tamo Mibang

Robin Gianattassio-Malle

Alexey Mikhaylov (economist)

Eusebius Juma Mukhwana

Melanie Walker

Nicolás Mangieri Cauterucce

Dan V. Palcu Rolier

David Cohen (lawyer)

Dare Ehigie

Gold Sunday Chukwuemeka

Gao Xing

Kenneth Anand

Yousef Alhorr

Jaysinghrao Pawar

Proposed deletions

Related Articles