Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

Andy Hsu

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

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

Does not appear to meet any of the provisions of WP:NPROF JMWt (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. JMWt (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see an h-index in Gscholar, so likely not passing PROF. Nothing comes up in Gsearch that appears to be this person, is someone else. Sourcing is press release or non-RS sources, so no help. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: This one's confusing. It's possible that being an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology fulfils WP:NPROF #3, but we don't really have strong verification of his actually being an elected fellow, and he's not exactly an academic: he has a Master's degree in medicine at the University of Sydney, no PhD, is currently pursuing another Master's degree in data science, but is also called "Professor Andy Hsu" in The Biologist, which is the monthly magazine of Royal Society of Biology, and he leads a lab doing neuroscience - the link in the article is to archive.org but here it is at the Royal Society of Biology's website too: https://biologist.rsb.org.uk/lab_unlocked_andy_hsu.html - although the article looks like he wrote it himself, it's in the first person. But the article is published in what seems to be a reputable magazine for the society so I suppose at least the information that he is an elected fellow though presumably not the "Professor" title might be correct. The Royal Society unlike most other societies of that type does not have a searchable database of fellows.[] I can't see anything else that would satisfy the criteria for notability. Lijil (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete -- note that the two fellowships listed first at are both "apply (and pay) to join" types. Given lack of other typical WP:PROF-qualifying criteria, the Fellow route C3 will require above-normal documentation. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Harish C. Mehta

Harish C. Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete per WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The article itself is nearly contentless: the journalistic career section consists of a single sentence stating he has written for newspapers, supported by an archived Outlook India search page. The books section covers one co-authored title criticised by reviewers as hagiographic. The Samuel Flagg Bemis Award citation links not to an award announcement but to one of Mehta's own journal articles, providing no verification of the claim. The Google Scholar and Rising Asia Journal editorial board pages are primary sources. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Journalism, History, Asia, Vietnam, India, and Canada. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Book Reviews
  • Review of People's Diplomacy in Journal of Vietnamese Studies , in The Sixties: A Journal of Politics, History, and Culture
  • Review of Cambodia Silenced in Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science

Jahaza (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep: The book reviews provided by Jahaza, combined with those already present in the article, suggest a WP:NAUTHOR pass to me. I'll admit, I got a laugh out of "He has written for newspapers" but being poorly developed is not a reason for deletion. Also, could pass NACADEMIC #8 if Rising Asia Journal is a "well-established academic journal". -- MediaKyle (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've updated the article to include the new reviews, note the additional books, lightly copyedit and improve the journalism section. Jahaza (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: per WP:HEY. Thanks to Jahaza for improving the article. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Frank Agullo

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

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

This article is promotional in nature without making a claim to notability Czarking0 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Minnesota, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough there for GNG and the types of fellowships listed on the page are standard-career-path-apply-to-become-a-fellow types and do not count towards WP:PROF notability (particularly not the type for C3). Not seeing enough out there in the article suggesting more the run-of-the-mill coverage. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The only reliable, independent sources are USA Today Network articles . If at least two more non-brief mentions were found from other sources, it would pass. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

François de Loys

François de Loys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to De Loys's ape per WP:NOPAGE and WP:1E. François de Loys is notable only for his "discovery" of De Loys's ape. Both pages have history and there has been a lot of back and forth over the years between having two separate articles and one redirecting to the other. So, I am bringing this to the community for consensus. I stumbled upon these pages last month, at which time De Loys's ape was a redirect to François de Loys. Upon reviewing the history, I restored De Loys's ape (Special:Diff/1348850939) and blanked and redirected François de Loys there (Special:Diff/1348853044). At that time, both articles covered the exact same information and both needed clean up, but De Loys's ape was written in a more encyclopedic tone and needed less work. User:Cdjp1 has recently restored François de Loys to a standalone article but has, appropriately, not duplicated all the details from De Loys's ape. The result is that we now have a likely permastub. I propose De Loys's ape as the main article with the "discoverer" redirecting there. Almost all sources mention both, but a bit more is written about the "ape", and De Loys's ape permits more discussion of the role of George Montandon and subsequent scientific assessments, which would be largely beyond the scope of François de Loys's biography. On the other hand, brief biographical background on de Loys is reasonable to include in the "ape" article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Paranormal, Science, Biology, Switzerland, South America, and Venezuela. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there wasn't coverage of him biographically somewhere. Annoyingly, neither of the free Swiss newspaper archives are working for me right now, so I'll check later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

If there's WP:SIGCOV and enough details unrelated to De Loys's ape, I would have no objection. If there is only a small amount of additional detail, it could reasonably be covered in a 'Background' section, or elsewhere, in the ape article. If there isn't sufficient expansion of this stub during the course of this discussion and there is consensus to redirect on the basis of the article's current state, that should not preclude future restoration with expansion in the event that someone comes along later with substantive content. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptozoology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Switzerland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge whatever salvageable. The most detailed biography I've found is this 2.5 page biography in the Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles. There's also this swissinfo article. In e-newspaperarchives.ch, I got 17 hits, almost all in relation to the monkey. The most indepth one was this article in La Tribune de Genève. The articles linked here contain some depth unrelated to the monkey. The most interestings to write about are probably his racist views towards the Barí people and his relation to Montandon who saw the monkey as proof for his racist theories on human evolution. Despite this, he is still not independently notable in my view. The only reason these articles exist about him is the monkey and I haven't found a source discussing him significantly without mentioning the monkey. Ping me if significantly expanded or other sources are found. YuniToumei (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair, why would you expect a source that discusses him significantly without that? As long as it isn't the only thing they discuss, why would that be a problem if they discuss the totality of his life? I wouldn't expect a source to not mention the most famous thing a person did. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  True, that is very fair. Still, I'm not sure the bio linked above and biographical traces in other articles amount to enough for a separate article over just expanding De Loys' Ape. YuniToumei (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, just discussing that one comment of yours. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. These are not in-depth biographies or coverage of other aspects of his life and work that also discuss his most prominent contribution. For the most part, these are sources about De Loys's ape that sometimes, to varying degrees, provide additional biographical information about one of the people at the center of it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  Somewhat as an aside, the role of scientific racism in Montandon's and de Loys's promotion of the "ape" could be expanded upon in the De Loys's ape article. This article discusses the topic. It's an excerpt from a self-published book, so not useable as source, but it contains several references that could be used. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to De Loys's ape: Per nom. This article isn't going anywhere and all relevant information can easily be handled on the article about the hoax. UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Brian Egan

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

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

Not notable Kivi36 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Kivi36 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since August 2020, for an article that has only existed since that April. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, Alabama, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of in depth third party coverage. Mccapra (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment brief article in the New York Times when he was appointed college president. Jahaza (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete doing a Google search I could not find anything about him, the name Brian Egan is a very common name. Catfurball (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Tandin Dorji

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

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

This previously deleted article makes no claim to notability and is promotional rather than encyclopedic. Czarking0 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Asia, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The previous deletion was an A7 speedy, and there's enough in the article to save it from a repeat of that, but not enough to show any form of notability. As an educational entrepreneur rather than someone known for scholarship he does not pass WP:PROF and we have no evidence of WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO. ~2026-26919-26 (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability WP:GNG. Girdi45 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Asif Alam

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

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

Looks like it's AI-generated and thus in breach of WP:NOLLM. The main reason for this is the nonsensical citations - e.g. ref 3 is supposed to support his working at FIU but it is to his team winning a gold medal for a completely different university, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. Ref 1 does not mention him. Beyond this, the person does not fulfil WP:NPROF. H-index is 3. The journal he is editor-in-chief of was established last year at the university he works for and does not yet include any published articles other than the editorial announcing the journal that he wrote. The claim that he is known for work on RF Frequeny Scaling references a paper he wrote last year that according to Goolge Scholar has two citations, both self-citations. There are no other credible claims for notability. Lijil (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - please note that this article was tagged for WP:G15 deletion but an inappropriate edit removed it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of the G15 concerns he also does not pass WP:PROF. The nomination statement already makes clear why his editorial position does not pass #C8 and nothing else comes close. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable scholar. A catastophic fail of WP:PROF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. here is the logic, on IMSIU's IMSL Lab website, he is listed, therefore the Saudi Sources, now the question for notability, his patent did win a gold medal in Geneva based on the Saudi Reference, so he would pass under category two "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"

https://units.imamu.edu.sa/colleges/en/Engineering/AcademicDepts/Electrical/Pages/Integrated-Microwave-Systems-Lab.aspx Miami tech (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The only could-be-notable thing is that he is an editor-in-chief, but he is editor in chief of a non-notable publication. Al-Budhi (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete little citations on GS to pass WP:PROF. It can be deleted under WP:NOLLM as well. ~2026-26919-26 (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Muhmmad Shah Alam

Muhmmad Shah Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to fulfil WP:NPROF. 634 citations, h-index 14, has won a couple of gold medals but not clear how significant this is, Article was previously draftified and moved back to mainspace by creator. His two professional memberships are of large societies that do not fulfill WP:NPROF #3. Possible COI given that two very new users have created and edited almost nothing but articles for Alam, a coauthor named Asif Alam, a concept in a paper they coauthored last year (RF Frequency Scaling). Lijil (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep.

This nomination should be speedily closed. It is inadequately argued, procedurally flawed, and rests on speculation rather than policy.

WP:NPROF explicitly mandates that citation impact be evaluated against discipline specific field norms. The nominator has made zero attempt to do this. Without that analysis the nomination is built on nothing. You cannot nominate an RF engineering academic for deletion without understanding RF engineering publication culture. IEEE Access is the premier open access journal of the IEEE, the world's largest technical professional organization. Publishing repeatedly there and accumulating independent citations from unconnected researchers at unconnected institutions is exactly what Criterion 1 looks like in this field.

Criterion 1 is unambiguously satisfied. Alam's 2022 SIW MIMO review has been independently cited by researchers at multiple institutions in Sensors, Scientific Reports, and Applied Sciences. These are not self citations. These are not coauthor citations. These are independent researchers building on his work, which is the gold standard of academic impact. WP:NPROF could not be clearer on this point. Additionally his RF Frequency Scaling framework independently satisfies Criterion 1 as a pioneered new concept, published in a major peer reviewed venue, representing a genuinely original contribution to how the field models historical transistor frequency trends.

Criterion 2 is supported. The International Exhibition of Inventions Geneva is not a minor competition. It has run for fifty editions, draws participants from dozens of countries, and a gold medal for a specifically named patented invention represents exactly the kind of international recognition WP:NPROF contemplates. The nominator dismisses this with no evidence whatsoever.

Criterion 7 is satisfied. Two granted US patents assigned to a major university represent real world technical validation beyond academia. Independent reporting across Arab News, Saudi Press Agency, and major Indian national outlets demonstrates public reach that most academics never achieve.

The COI allegation is the weakest part of an already weak nomination. Shared authorship is a completely normal feature of academic life. The nominator has produced zero evidence of undisclosed financial interest, zero evidence of paid editing, and zero evidence of any actual conflict. Speculation dressed up as concern is not policy and deserves no weight from closing editors.

This article clearly meets WP:NPROF on multiple criteria. The nomination has failed to demonstrate otherwise. Keep. AligarhS (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC) — AligarhS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Additionally, Criterion 3 is also satisfied. Alam is a Fellow of the IETE and a Senior Member of IEEE, the world's largest technical professional organization with highly selective grade requirements. WP:NPROF explicitly lists fellowship as a qualifying honor under Criterion 3. The nominator has not addressed this at all, which alone is a significant failure of the nomination. AligarhS (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Prof Alam is no doubt an excellent academic, and I don't want to cast any aspersions on his contributions to the field. However, I cannot see that he fulfils the specific criteria for the inclusion of a biographical article about him in Wikipedia. Most academics do not fulfil these criteria.

• Criteria 1 requires highly cited academic work. Alam's work appears to be typically cited for the field. The article does not demonstrate that he has introduced concepts or techniques that have been particularly significant in the field. For example ref 11 is to a paper he published in 2004 that has 10 citations in Scopus of which 7 are self-citations. Ref 9 is to a 2006 paper that has 3 citations.
• Criterion 3 requires The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Alam is a member of two societies, but is not an elected fellow of either. Each of these societies has tens of thousands of members.
  • Fellow of the Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers (IETE) - Fellow is not elected, so this does not fulful the criterion. Here is the description of which levels of membership are elected.
  • Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). This is the highest non-elected membership category, according to their website.
• Criterion 7 states that Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7, so the patents are not relevant. The media reports are great, but mostly fairly minimal coverage about the medals and there is not enough WP:SIGCOV for notability on this alone.

Lijil (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I would like to point out to the closing editor that AI is being used by Lijil, as the links provided lead nowhere, they return a 404 Not Found page, the one for the IETE Fellow requirements. Lijil is simply copying and pasting into an AI tool and submitting whatever it generates. This is very concerning for someone who holds so much power on Wikipedia and is blatantly using AI, which is completely against Wikipedia policy. John Barry 45 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC) — John Barry 45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I will ping @Lijil: so that they can respond to this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the links were broken @John Barry 45:, and for the ping @Spiderone:! I'm sorry about the 404s. I should have double-checked the URLs, I copy-and-pasted them from my browser but I guess they were dynamic and that's maybe why they didn't work? I certainly didn't use an LLM, as I hate them. I'll go back and edit my comment above to fix them, and they're here too:

• IETE: https://www.iete.org/iete-membership/
• IEEE: https://www.ieee.org/membership/qualifications

Lijil (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

https://www.iete.org/corporate-membership-eligibility-criteria/

It says it right here, IETE fellows are elected.

Realistically, Criteria 1, Criteria 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 7 are satisfied, I think its rational to include the article as it satisfies the requirements.

In regards to criterion 1, this is just cherry picking a specific paper, as I have analyzed the person's google scholar, the person does have highly cited articles, also would like to remind that citation metrics are discipline specific, so things should be looked that way, and based on that google scholar analysis, I think Criteria 1 is also satisfied, as the person happens to be in a niche area of RF. John Barry 45 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering it's elected, using the link sent in by @Lijil, the person satisfies, Criteria 1, Criteria 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 7 are very clearly satisfied. John Barry 45 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lijil Also in the link you mentioned it clearly says they are elected, please read this part, it's a very standard thing in academics, you can't become a fellow without election, at least in Electrical Engineering, you can't deny the truth, It is indeed an elected honor, but with all due respect, its just a blatant lie.

https://www.iete.org/iete-membership/

3] Fellow (F) :

Elgibility Criteria

A candidate for election as a Fellow or for transfer to the class of Fellow should possess the following qualifications:

Attained the age of at least thirty five on the date of his application for election or transfer.

Should have passed the AMIETE examination of the Institution as per examination regulations prescribed by the Council from time to time; OR

Any other examination, which in the opinion of the Council, is equivalent to, or warrants exemption from the AMIETE examination of the Institution ;OR

Passed a post-graduate examination of a recognised university, and/or the Institution or equivalent in any of the disciplines of interest to the institution

Should be engaged in the discipline in a position of high responsibility, or have retired from the profession after having held, before his/her application for election or transfer, a position of high responsibility.

At least ten years experience in the discipline during which the candidate should have held a position of higher responsibility in an organisation for a period of five years, or made outstanding contribution in the discipline. John Barry 45 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You are very close to WP:PA. Stop bludgeoning. SecretSpectre (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

In regards to IETE Fellow, Indeed it is elected, please see the link below, I have pasted the text from IETE bylaws as well, Lijil arguments are just baseless.

https://www.iete.org/corporate-membership-eligibility-criteria/

Eligibility Criteria for Various Grades of Membership

FELLOWS (Byelaw-11)

11. A candidate for election as Fellow or for transfer to the class of Fellow shall satisfy the Council that he possesses the following qualifications:

(a) Age: He shall have attained the age of thirty-five years on the date of his application for election or transfer.

(b) Academic Qualification: AMIETE/BE/B.Tech/B.Sc (Engg) in Electrical Engg., Electronics Engg., Electrical Commn Engg; Instrumentation Engg; Information Technology; Computer Science; Bio-electronics.

ME/M. Tech/MS (Computer Science), MCA/MSc (Computer Science), ALCCS, DOEACC’B’ Level.

OR

shall have passed any other examination, which in the opinion of the Council, is equivalent to or warrants exemption, from the AMIETE examination of the Institution;

OR

shall have passed a post-graduate examination of a recognized university, and/or Institution or equivalent in

any of the disciplines as in Bye-Law 1 (f).

(c) Occupation: He shall be engaged in the discipline in a position of high responsibility, provided that a temporary unemployment shall not be deemed a disqualification; or shall have retired from the profession after having held, before his application for election or transfer, a position of high responsibility.

(d) Experience : He shall have had at least ten years experience in the discipline during which he, either shall have a position of higher responsibility in an organization for a period of five years, of shall have made outstanding contribution in the discipline

Based on that, IETE Fellows are elected, therefore the Criterion 3, is satisfied. John Barry 45 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

In regards to criterion 1, this is just cherry picking a specific paper, as I have analyzed the person's google scholar, the person does have highly cited articles, also would like to remind that citation metrics are discipline specific, so things should be looked that way, and based on that google scholar analysis, I think Criteria 1 is also satisfied, as the person happens to be in a niche area of RF. John Barry 45 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

According to https://www.iete.org/iete-membership/ there are five categories of fellow/member of IETE. Alam is in the 3rd category.

1. Honorary Fellow (HF) (elected)

2. Distinguished Fellow (DF) (elected)

3. Fellow (F)

4. Member (M)

5. Associate member (AM) Lijil (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Fellow is elected, I checked it out on the link, it's pretty clear, did you have a chance to check it out? @Lijil John Barry 45 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lijil there is an extra vertical bar "|" at the end of the links you posted. When you post external links and change the name of the link don't put the bar in or it will think it's part of the URL. SecretSpectre (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that's what went wrong! Thanks for spotting it - I think I put the URL and text in the wrong order and had a copy-paste error. And then I just didn't spot the |. Thanks! Lijil (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with AligarhS, I think the Professor clearly meets the WP:NPROF guidelines. John Barry 45 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I would like to point out that the editors who have created this set of three articles are @John Barry 45, @AligarhS and @Miami tech, who has not contributed to the article nominated for deletion in this AfD, but who contributed to Asif Alam and RF Frequency Scaling. Lijil (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern but this COI allegation is not supported by any evidence. Shared interest in a topic is not COI. There are many independent editors who follow RF engineering. The fact that multiple editors have contributed to related articles simply reflects that these are genuinely interesting topics that attract genuine editorial interest.

Wikipedia's COI guideline requires actual evidence of an undisclosed relationship with the subject, not speculation based on editing patterns alone. I have no personal, financial or professional connection to any of the subjects of these articles and I am happy to state that clearly on the record.

I would ask the closing editor to evaluate these articles entirely on their notability merits, which I believe are strong and which I have outlined above. Unsubstantiated COI allegations should not substitute for genuine notability analysis. John Barry 45 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with AligarhS, I think the Professor clearly meets the WP:NPROF guidelines. John Barry 45 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. His citation counts are clearly too low to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Non-notable awards do not pass #C2. I do not think Fellow of IETE (a society that is both specialized and regional) is enough for #C3; for that we want either major international specialized societies like IEEE or national-academy level regional societies. And the claim above that having patents is enough for #C7 is laughable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Upon looking up IETE on Wikipedia, Indeed IETE is a big thing, so we can't discard someone's right by making a personal judgement, that IETE is nothing @David Eppstein, perhaps if @David Eppstein still holds on to his "opinion," then we should proceed to delete the IETE page from Wikipedia too, then only we as editors will be doing a fair thing, or then it's just double standards. I mean the guy is clearly an elected fellow at IETE. Also, the Gold Medal in Geneva does satisfy the basis of a prestigious academic award. So, the guy clearly meets multiple criterias.

  Also, @David Eppstein please don't hold opinions, you need to make arguments based on evidence and rationality, not "I think this should happen, so this should happen"

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Electronics_and_Telecommunication_Engineers John Barry 45 (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  You might try reading Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  Didn't mean to do it, but we need to focus on the subject at hand. IETE is notable, Wikipedia itself says it. John Barry 45 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have not formulated an opinion on the notability of Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers as an encyclopedia topic. But that's irrelevant. The point is that WP:PROF#C3 is only for a society that "reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor". Different societies use this word in different ways. Our article on IETE says that, for them, the highly selective honors are called "honorary fellow" and, below that, "distinguished fellow". "Fellow" is a level below that. And their own web site on their membership criteria lists criteria at the fellow level that appear to be well below the level which would count for #C3 notability. It's the same thing with IEEE: their top membership level (fellow) counts but their next membership level (senior member) does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Description of criteria for IETE fellow vs distingushed fellow is here , and I agree that fellow is not the kind of selective award that we're looking for WP:NPROF C3. Little other sign of NPROF, no other assertion of notability. May just be WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or Draftify: As per above nom, and as I had already drafted this earlier. The votes of AligarhS and John Barry 45 appear less constructive and more COI. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable as others have said. Also EE is a high citation field, and despite that his h index is considerably low. Yes the person might become notable in the coming days, as he is on an upward trend, but its Toosoon Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Md. Farid Uddin Khan

Md. Farid Uddin Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Rht bd (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Schools, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing in Gscholar, so no h-index that I can find. Doesn't appear to pass notability, the position held wouldn't be notable as the vice chancellor... Article is a whole of two lines, with one source. That's hardly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as above. GS cites tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC).

Delete as above Ahammed Saad (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Vice-chancellor of a 72-year-old major public university would pass WP:PROF#C6; pro-vice-chancellor does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to University of Rajshahi. He is not independently notable but will still be mentioned on the university article due to his position. WP:ATD applies. ~2026-26919-26 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per David Eppstein. My concern with a redirect is that this might be a precedent to redirect every Vice-President, acting president, and dean of a college. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Lorstaking (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Mohammad Main Uddin

Mohammad Main Uddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPROF Rht bd (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Vice-chancellor of a 72-year-old major public university would pass WP:PROF#C6; pro-vice-chancellor does not (as I wrote also on the other article about a PVC on the same university, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Farid Uddin Khan). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per David Eppstein, whom I respect in academic matters. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Leonardo Gómez Torrego

Leonardo Gómez Torrego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject frequently publishes on Spanish linguistics and is sometimes quoted on that topic, but I can't find any sources which discuss him in detail that would satisfy WP:GNG while also being independent of his various initiatives and positions. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm leaning keep on this one: we have at least one review already cited in the article, and WP:NAUTHOR is passed if there are multiple reviews of his body of work. I haven't done a check, but with so many published books I'd be surprised if it's not met. There's also potentially a WP:ANYBIO pass under The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor with the award of the Commander's Cross of the Order of Alfonso X the Wise, but I don't know enough about the Spanish honours system to know how big a deal this level of award is (it's the tier below the cross with plaque, which according to the article is limited to 750 people and allows the use of an honorific title, so would be an easy pass). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the review justification. Surely a review confers notability on a book not an author? NAUTHOR requires their works to have won significant critical attention, which in my view is more than the multiple reviews you need for WP:NBOOK. The award question is always difficult, WP:NACADEMIC gives The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level, which is helpfully ambiguous. The list of recipients on both the English and Spanish wikipedia have got a lot of red or black names, in as much as that matters.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

A review is an independently published in-depth source about what the author has done. Most Wikipedia notability criteria are based on exactly that: independently published in-depth sources about their subjects. We need more than one review for WP:AUTHOR, and more than one reviewed book (because of BIO1E) but this is very much in line with WP:GNG-based notability. WP:NACADEMIC is another thing entirely and is a better fit for academics in STEM fields (where journal papers, citations, and society fellowships are more common) than in book-writing fields in the humanities. Your mention of WP:NBOOK is well off topic: that's for books, not for their authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. UndercoverClassicist is referring to this book review which is cited on the article now. It's available at ResearchGate and gives one paragraph of opinion on the author, with the rest dedicated to the book. UC seemed to be using the criteria for WP:NBOOK, where multiple reviews (in the sense of opinion-based book reviews) can establish notability. Obviously, as you say, WP:NAUTHOR are the subject specific criteria that should apply. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Having said that, WP:ACADEMIC is clearly also applicable in the humanities, and so cases based on it here can be considered. As Gomez Torrego is both an author and an academic, if he passes either guideline's requirements he is probably notable. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep While he doesn't hold one of the de numero seats in the Royal Spanish Academy, he is apparently the "Corresponding Member for Madrid", which appears according to this article to be a quite substantial recognition. Jahaza (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Mark Wilson Jones

Mark Wilson Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has no references that are reliable, independent and secondary. Only three citations provided - all from organisations with which the subject has been involved. Paul W (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: H-index of 24 with 3000 citations and a few scholarly book reviews , , should pass notability, either PROF or AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep added four reviews of each of his single-authored books. Passes WP:AUTHOR. Jahaza (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews found by Jahaza. I found and added five more. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews for multiple publications. Also per HEY. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Rohit K. Dasgupta

Rohit K. Dasgupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't pass WP:NPOL as local councillor, and I think fails WP:NPROF but happy to be corrected. Awarded Freedom of the City of London but this only received coverage on employer's website. If not deleted, could do with some editing of career per WP:NOTRESUME. Orange sticker (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Sexuality and gender. Orange sticker (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: West Bengal and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. His stature as an academic is insufficient, but it's improving, so maybe in about five years he may be regarded as notable in that capacity. Athel cb (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Babin Mew (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep.m The article can be improved by editing. Some of the material seems superfluous. Definitely notable under both politics (first Bengali annd queer civic mayor) and academics given area of research (South Asian queer politics) which is niche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26844-82 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to East Hampshire (UK Parliament constituency). Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NPROF but WP:ATD exists. ~2026-26919-26 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  as a councillor wouldn't it be more appropriate to redirect to Newham London Borough Council? Orange sticker (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:NPROF. Girdi45 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I do not see the subject passing GNG or NPROF, and the subject fails NPOL. A redirect does not work to either option as the subject's name is not included in Newham London Borough Council where the subject is better known. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

David Strong

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

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

Does not meet criteria for WP:NACADEMIC, a cursory search for additional references did not yield anything meaningful. Snuggle📫 11:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philosophy. Snuggle📫 11:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I found three reviews of his book Crazy Mountains and added them to the article. On his other book, he's one of three editors. I didn't look for reviews of that one yet. It's borderline for WP:AUTHOR. His first book is arguably notable, in which case we'd redirect his name to the book if we had an article. Jahaza (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NACADEMIC failure since 2021. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Montana, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Francesco Alarico della Scala

Francesco Alarico della Scala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable per WP:BASIC - self-promotional page, relies heavily on primary and self-published sources askeuhd (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. askeuhd (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  Keep - the argument for keeping would be simply that the subject meets WP:GNG. There is an Esquire article with significant coverage, and reviews of the subject's article in Gazzetta dell'Emilia or Zerosette. WP:BASIC would be met.

  When it comes to the issue of whether the content is self-promotional, this would be a WP:TONE issue and would concern the content of the page rather than whether the subject is notable, and AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Brat Forelli🦊 05:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Keep - The subject of the article meets the sigcov standard as previously expressed. PlebeianTribune (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: a few paragraphs in Esquire is ok but the "reviews of the subject's articles" mentioned above are both passing mentions without any analysis. I couldn't find any other good sources with in-depth coverage and all the citations currently in the article are either written by della Scala or passing mentions. There may be sources I missed though, willing to change my vote if better sources are provided. Shapeyness (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Kyriakos G. Vamvoudakis

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

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

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users: ~2026-26118-55 (talk · contribs · block log) ~2026-26863-45 (talk · contribs · block log) ~2026-26666-44 (talk · contribs · block log) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Can't seem to find any independent reliable sources about this guy outside of primary sources such as bios from colleges that he taught at. Not sure thats enought to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Article was also created by a close relative of the indivdual. JLN2026 (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. His Google Scholar profile is adequate, and improving rapidly each year. At present h = 46, but it will certainly increase. 685 citations already in 2026. Athel cb (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. He has gotten many awards including

https://www.inns.org/inns-award-recipients

https://aiaa.org/2023/10/03/aiaa-announces-its-class-of-2024-associate-fellows/

https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award/?AWD_ID=1851588

https://uli.arc.nasa.gov/projects/10/

https://daytonabeach.erau.edu/about/labs/advanced-dynamics-and-control-laboratory/advanced-dynamics-and-control-group/nasa-uli-safety/members ~2026-26118-55 (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of these. The AIAA one is given to what looks to be 100+ people per year (I didn't count them but it's a very long list) which isn't encouraging for notability. The NSF one is using the word "award" to mean "grant," as NSF typically does: this is a notice that the person got a grant from NSF. Both NASA ones are descriptions of NASA-funded projects in which the person is involved in some capacity. Neither the NSF nor the two NASA are "awards" in the sense of receiving a prize or accolade. Only the INNS award seems like it would be any help in establishing notability, given that receiving grants from NSF and NASA is quite routine for working scientists or engineers. M kuhner (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The NSF CAREER Award is the most prestigious award given to junior faculty. I checked and his accolades are listed in his website:

https://kyriakos.ae.gatech.edu/awards.html as well as many books https://kyriakos.ae.gatech.edu/pub.html

This guy seems to be a celebrity Also he has received several media coverage in the second ranking school of aerospace ~2026-26118-55 (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I also checked and he is editor in chief of the best aerospace journal ~2026-26118-55 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, per WP:NPROF. Citation record is likely a pass of NPROF C1. The endowed professorship is a likely pass of NPROF C5. The journal appears to be the kind of well-established journal referred to by C8. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I had missed that the endowed professorship is at the associate level, which is excluded from NPROF C5. This weakens the keep case a little, but I think it is still solid. Responding to Ldm1954's query below, I don't see much point to draftifying -- it would just make work for AfC reviewers. I do now see strong signs of substantial LLM involvement in writing the article, and might !vote procedural delete if I had it all to do over again. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify. He passes notability tests in WP:NPROF both on his citations and editor in chief. However, the page is in really bad shape, with no sources for his research, wrong format for the selected pubs, not enough independent sources plus the autobiographical question. (We should definitely not have people creating autobiographical articles directly in main.) If someone wants to do a WP:HEY rewrite then it can stay. This is a standard case where draftification as part of WP:NPP is highly appropriate, but I don't think it can be done now until after this AfD is concluded. I will ask about the COI issue at the relevant user pages, and ping Russ Woodroofe and Athel cb about draftification.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  The page creator was pinged about autobiographical edits on April 27th, and did not respond so I think we should assume it is autobiographical. I am concerned about some IP edits done after that date. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  And....he is an associate professor according to his universityweb page, and the image used here is on that page so might have a copyright issue. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  I finished the job @Russ Woodroofe had mainly done in removing content that does not belong. I think the (now) stub is WP:HEY OK to keep, although it is a weak keep as he is co-Editor in chief. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't strongly object to Draftify, but I still think that Keep is the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The subject unambiguously passes multiple criteria for academic notability (WP:PROF), and the article has been completely overhauled to verify this with independent, third-party sourcing.

Passes Criterion 1 (Highly Cited/Impact): He has over 16,000 citations on Google Scholar and has authored or edited several major textbooks and handbooks with top academic publishers, including Springer, Elsevier, and CRC Press.

Passes Criterion 2 (Major Awards): He is the recipient of highly selective, national-level grants and awards, including the NSF CAREER Award (2018), the ARO Young Investigator Program Award (2019), and the INNS Young Investigator Award (2016).

Passes Criteria 4 & 8 (Named Chair & Leadership): He currently holds a named, endowed chair (the Dutton-Ducoffe Endowed Professorship) at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Furthermore, he serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Aerospace Science and Technology (Elsevier) and is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA. The previous version of the article relied too heavily on primary sources and routine journal papers, which likely triggered the nomination. The current revision has replaced those with verified books and rigorous third-party citations (Virginia Tech, Cornell University, INNS, Elsevier), resolving the nominator's initial concerns. ~2026-26666-44 (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep

~2026-26863-45 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Debabrata Das (academic)

Debabrata Das (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP that fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, and reads as a CV/promotional piece. Of the five citations, four are primary or affiliated sources: ref 1 is the ARGUCOM website's own VC profile, ref 3 is an institutional page (ASU), ref 4 is the Tezpur University faculty profile, and ref 5 is an Arunachal Pradesh planning board listing. On WP:NACADEMIC, nothing in the article demonstrates the named criteria which is no evidence of a highly cited research record, named chair, major academic award, fellowship of a major scholarly society, or impact in the discipline. serving as VC of a state university can satisfy C6, but ARGUCOM was dissolved in December 2023 and merged into Sibsagar University, and the parent institution itself is at AfD with marginal sourcing Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Management, Education, Technology, India, and Assam. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: SIGCOV isn't there in sources, so fails in GNG. Could have saved himself per #6 criterion of WP:NACADEMIC, but ARGUCOM is a non-notable, non-major institute....so that doesn't help. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Assam Rajiv Gandhi University of Cooperative Management. WP:NPROF but WP:ATD exists. ~2026-26919-26 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  Would the redirect be useful? Today he is the VC, so he is listed at the page. Tomorrow, when the VC will be someone else, there would be his/her name at the page and this redirect would become redundant. BhikhariInformer (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Harikumar Pallathadka

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing beyond what's already cited, no in-depth independent profiles, no significant scholarly coverage, nothing that would establish notability. The existing sourcing is almost entirely WP:ROUTINE news mentions of individual RTI filings rather than significant coverage of the subject himself, and refs 3 and 4 are the same Hindustan Times article double-cited. Claims of "hundreds of patents" and "hundreds of research papers" are sourced to a generic IP Australia disclaimer page and a dead link labeled "Unknown," failing WP:V and WP:NACADEMIC. The article is also saturated with WP:PEACOCK language ("eminent," "prominent," "expert") flagged by the promotional-tone banner, raising WP:AUTOBIO / WP:UPE concerns, and WP:TNT would apply even if a notable core could be salvaged. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, Social science, India, and Manipur. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I did some searches and can't find anything written specifically about him from a secondary source that would pass qualification per the RS noticeboard. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Bennet Carr

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

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

Non notable head teacher of a British school. fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.This is about her school. Girdi45 (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, and England. Girdi45 (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, found only one source that provide WP:SIGCOV, the rest are trivial single mentions. Santa Saana (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. The school is very much notable, but not a headmaster 400 years later. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to King Edward VI School, Stratford-upon-Avon. Fails WP:GNG, but WP:ATD exists. ~2026-26919-26 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to King Edward VI School, Stratford-upon-Avon as an alternative to deletion. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete -- lack of SIGCOV and WP:PROF#C6 does not necessarily apply even to most very long-lived primary/secondary schools. No objection to Redirect either, but given the commonness of both parts of the name, the redirect should be able to be written over without disambiguation for any articles on other subjects sharing the name. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Sheldon Marks

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

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

Sheldon is a friend of mine. He does not need this page and says it is inaccurate and does not truly represent his achievements. He also says his ego is hurt by having such a page. He either wants a detailed page or wants this one deleted. I looked at Wikipedia's guidelines, and they state that he needs secondary sources. Unfortunately, there is hardly any such coverage. Perhaps we can delete this now under WP:GNG, as there is no coverage. He is also a professor but it is not his main job and likely fails WP:NPROF. DavidfromArizona (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: when the subject of a biography of living person requests that the article be deleted, we usually oblige unless it is manifestly obvious that the article should stay. In these cases, the bar is higher than normal, and WP:GNG -- significant coverage in multiple reliable sources -- needs to be met, not merely (e.g. WP:NPROF). I'd be tempted to consider this as effectively a request from the subject, but could you perhaps persuade him to create an account and make the request personally? As far as I can see the article is very far from GNG and it would be an easy delete with such a request. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I disagree that BLPREQUESTDELETE is a justification for throwing one notability guideline (WP:PROF) out the window and substituting an unrelated notability guideline (WP:GNG). Nothing in our policies and guidelines says any such thing. That aside, even purely considering WP:PROF, notability here is borderline enough that even without the BLPREQUESTDELETE I would probably land on the delete side, and with it the case is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. In addition, there is a lack of coverage for the WP:GNG here. What is in the article is just primary sources and press releases. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with David Eppstein that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't mean we adopt different notability guidelines. Also, the nominator's comment that the Sheldon Marks's "ego is hurt by having such a page" and "he either wants a detailed page or wants this one deleted" is laughably oft-putting. Anyway, a search of citations and new records shows that while the subject appears to be a good doctor, he doesn't actually meet our notability guidelines. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Only local and run-of-the-mill coverage available. Reads like a resume. WidgetKid ^Converse 01:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment from the article subject. I am Dr. Sheldon Marks, the subject of this article. I created this account specifically to address this discussion. Per WP:COI, I am declaring that I am the subject; I will not edit the article directly.

• I would like to correct the factual record on several points raised in the nomination.

• (1) I did not request deletion of this article. I have not authorized any person — friend, contractor, representative, or third party — to request deletion on my behalf. I do not know the user "DavidfromArizona." The statements attributed to me in the nomination — that my "ego is hurt by having such a page" and that I "either want a detailed page or want this one deleted" — are not statements I have made and do not reflect my position. I respectfully ask that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE not be weighed in this discussion, as no such request from me exists.

• (2) I have not engaged any reputation-management firm, SEO firm, or other third party regarding my Wikipedia presence. My only marketing contractor handles general medical-practice marketing and is not authorized to act on my Wikipedia article.

• (3) My position is that the article should be kept. I acknowledge the present version reads as CV-style and would benefit from substantial editorial cleanup. I welcome that work, and I am happy to answer source or factual questions on the article's Talk page.

• (4) On notability, for the closing administrator's consideration: I am the author of Vasectomy Reversal: Manual of Vasovasostomy and Vasoepididymostomy (Springer, 2018), translated into Chinese by Springer Nature in 2025; the surgical instrument known as the Marks Vas Cutting Forceps is named for me; I have served as Course Coordinator for the AUA post-graduate course on vasectomy reversal; and I have been a contributor to WebMD since 2005. Whether this meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF is for the community to determine.

• I appreciate the editors who have raised legitimate concerns about the article's sourcing and tone — those concerns are valid, and the article does need work. I would simply ask that the discussion proceed on the article's actual merits rather than on a premise I never advanced. SheldonMarksMD (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: This new statement supposedly from the article's subject deeply concerns me. While I voted to delete the article, if this is truly Sheldon Marks then that means User:DavidfromArizona lied in the reasons why this AfD was created. I don't believe any AfD should be closed as a delete with such an issue hanging over the discussions. Is it possible to get proof that Sheldon Marks is the person commenting here? And if this is truly him, how should we proceed without making this AfD even more of a spectacle than it already is? SouthernNights (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  @SouthernNights: What I've seen in other cases like this is that once there have been votes to delete, the process is generally left to run it's course. WidgetKid ^Converse 03:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

  Fine with me. I'm not going to change my vote, but I also hate possible trolling like we're seeing in this AfD. SouthernNights (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Somebody is not telling the truth here regarding BLPREQUESTDELETE, so that aspect of the nomination may need to be disregarded. Regardless, relisting to allow consideration of the arguments made by the account purporting to be the article's subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Well, we have two sides, one wanting it deleted AND another one wanting a keep, both supposedly from the subject here. Regardless, I don't see book reviews to show a pass at ATUHOR, no h-index listing in Gscholar, so I don't see notability. Could be seen as PROMO I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. I'm not sure who is telling the truth but we can easily discount WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and judge the notability on its own merit. Sheldon should clarify who added these promotional edits even though it is not allowed as per WP:NOTPROMO (and should apologize to the community or donate some funds to Wikimedia Foundation). Anyways, there are no book reviews of his book(s) to meet WP:NAUTHOR. As per the subject, his main claim of notability is "Marks Vas Cutting Forceps" but in my searches only promotional or ecommerce webites appeared. ~2026-26919-26 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Close as "No Consensus" -- anyone can relist, but I think at this point the process has been too corrupted to be able to discern notability in either direction after the nomination under false pretense. I know that a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE has swayed me in the past to look harder (non-neutrally) for other reasons to delete (under GNG or WP:PROF), so I'm not sure that I can just strike the BLPRequest part of, for instance, David Eppstein's statement. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin (mathematician)

Eugene Plotkin (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No secondery citations, based on few primary and social mideo type references. GreenRedFlag (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. GreenRedFlag (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Israel, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Latvia and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Ar least on the surface, this would appear to be the same subject as the first nomination in 2017, and that ended as "delete". Has anything actually changed to put him over the notability hump? (He recently died, but that is often not a reason to create an article.) No specific opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Decent citations in a low-citation field but not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1 and I see no other claim to notability, not any reason to change my opinion from 2017. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The differences comparing 2017 are the following: (1) a number of additional papers were published (2) appointment to the position of Professor Emeritus, high position in Israeli universities) david1955 (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Publication itself is not a notability criterion; it is the impact and recognition (for instance through citations) of the publications that counts for WP:PROF#C1. And I'm not familiar with the Israeli system specifically, but in US universities at least, "emeritus" means only "retired in good standing"; it is not the sort of level beyond full professor that WP:PROF#C5 asks for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Accroding to the citations to his works is quite well especially in recent years. david1955 (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the Israeli system specifically either, but my impression is that it resembles the way emeritus status works in the UK and France, where it has much more prestige than just "retired in good standing". It needs to be applied for, with evidence that one is doing something, and is sometimes refused. In general, though, I agree with David Eppstein's analysis and that weak delete is the appropriate option. Athel cb (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Citation record is not bad in a low citation field, but is similar to that of mathematicians where the discussion has ended in delete. Nothing else looks like it brings him over the notability line. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep 🄻🄰 11:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hayrullah Örs

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

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

Clearly fails WP:NBIO. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The current sources are indeed weak and partly non-independent, but that alone does not mean the subject clearly fails WP:NBIO.

The issue appears to be insufficient sourcing rather than a demonstrated lack of notability. Before concluding a clear failure, the article should be improved with better independent secondary sources, or poorly sourced claims should be removed.

Deletion at this stage seems premature. BEFOR01 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, sourcing in the article is an issue. However, notability exists beyond the current sourcing of the article. When I did a Google Scholar search on this person, I found 1,300 citations. A search of the Wikipedia Library also turned up 28 citations. Unfortunately, most of these are not in English, but this strongly indicates the person meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think the case is there for notability through citation counts (WP:PROF#C1) but he appears to be the author of a book Musa ve Yahudilik and the translator of another, Yeni Türkiyeʾde İslâmlık (Islam in der neuen Türkei by Gotthard Jäschke). It's possible that he is the author of other books I didn't find. If we can find published reviews of multiple authored books, we would have a case for WP:AUTHOR notability, and the reviews could provide the sourcing we currently lack. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Alon Steinberg

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

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

A cardiologist who doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC (Scopus H-index of 6); might be considered for WP:NBIO, given profile arising the through the People v. Murray trial. Many of the sources related to the trial, but Steinberg's contribution is not the primary focus; Michael Jackson and his death are notable, the trial is notable, Steinberg isn't. Klbrain (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Medicine. Klbrain (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: California, Florida, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Steinberg is regularly consulted by media and courts as an expert on deaths related to police restraints, and his academic work has been cited by media (particularly in the wake of George Floyd's death), in addition to his work on the Michael Jackson suit. (Examples: , , ). I think this might be enough for WP:NPROF#C7. I'll leave the issue to the NPROF-knowers. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject meets WP:NPROF#7 based on independent coverage of his role as an academic expert in high-profile cases, including his testimony in People v. Murray and repeated national media appearances discussing prominent deaths (including Whitney Houston). He has also received coverage related to his research on in-custody and prone restraint deaths, including coverage surrounding the Murder of George Floyd and invitations to speak at numerous professional organizations (including the Police Executive Research Forum, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences). This goes beyond local coverage, and his notability extends past the Murray trial. slappyjo12 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly not notable as an academic. I leave others to decide whether his court appearnces make him notable, but to me they don't. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• weak keep: Not much found, other than his testimony in various trials. Seems to be a media expert, over several decades, I'd give that a pass for notability. If he was only mentioned a few times, I'd delete, but it spans a few decades, so lasting critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of significant coverage. We are a mirror, not a screen. He's notable for testifying, not as an academic. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Tamo Mibang

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

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

Not 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Per Slawomir Bialy TheAFDGuy (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Strike troll. Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete 🄻🄰 11:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  The tool lost my argument. It appears at this school chancellor is not ceremonial, I saw a mention that another chancellor returned to teaching. In any case, in India, a school with less than 5000 students is not a major academic institution. 🄻🄰 11:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - He held the highest academic position at this university (there's no evidence yet produced that the Chancellor position functions differently from the ceremonial role of most Indian universities). I think that 40+ years, 4000+ students and 250+ academic staff qualifies RGU as a major institution for WP:PROF#C6 purposes, but even if it is not at the level where every one of its VCs are significant, it appears from sources online that he was a/the particularly significant VC in the institution's history. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)