Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators

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

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Academics and educators[edit]

Vincent Bastien[edit]

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

Cited sources do not establish notability, and could not find anything more convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

weak keep: Coverage in a Korean source [1] and reviews of a book he co-authored [2] and [3] Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

keep: Notable, sources, has written a book. --McSyl (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Ramil Hashimli[edit]

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

Delete. This is a promotional page create by Atakhanli (the user was blocked-the reason for the blocking was noted that the editor was engaged in paid activities.). There is no nearly enough RS about the subject to establish notability.--Correspondentman (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: The {{subst:afd2}} formatting was not fully implemented here; I have fixed this. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Medicine, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. I can't see anything here that would satisfy WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Qflib (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Dennis Mangano[edit]

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

Draftify moved unilaterally to main space when unready. I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Draftify per nom. Not ready for mainspace. Other than one lawsuit in 2007 (which isn't mentioned in the article prose), the references seem to just be his published research papers. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Draftify. New enough for this to be a reasonable choice, sources inadequate for current content, but with some possible case for notability (possibly through WP:PROF#C1). That criterion does not require depth of sourcing for notability itself, but it does not eliminate the need for all claims in our article to be properly sourced. In particular all claims of having invented or discovering something important should be backed up by reliable independent sources that verify those claims; his own publications are not adequate for that kind of claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Draftify (the AFC reviewer who originally declined the submission). I do think the subject could meet the GNG, as there is some coverage (I have 1E concerns as it relates to the fact that a lot of the coverage will be primary in regards to the various lawsuits) but that is not demonstrated here and I have doubts that its demonstrated presently and the I have non-encyclopedic concerns about the article in mainspace presently. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Andrew Hignell[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – Pee Jay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I found this review of one of his books. Suriname0 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, doi:10.1256/wea.112.02. But I'm doubtful that [4] is sufficiently reliable, so that gives us only two reviews. I'd want more than that for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Maximilian Janisch[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Autobiography translated from dewiki. Perhaps the subject is notable, but this is not the way to an article compliant with WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment Thank you @Joe Roe: for starting a discussion of deletion. There is currently a discussion because of a WP:COISELF problem: The article in its current form was created as a translation of the German article de:Maximilian_Janisch by myself, the subject of the article. COI disclosures can be found at the article talk page, as well as my user page. I agree that the process through which the article was created is unfortunate as I should have suggested it through WP:AfC. My apologies for this mistake. Nonetheless I will argue that deletion is not the appropriate reaction below.

I have suggested steps to resolve the COI problem at the article talk page. I will now argue that deletion of the article is not the right thing to do since none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met. Instead I suggest WP:ATD, specifically editing and discussion. It would be great to have other Wikipedians ensure that the article is written based on solid evidence and from a WP:NPOV.

I now provide reasoning why I believe that none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met.

Speedy deletion criteria are not met.
Copyright violations are not present.
Vandalism is not present.
The article is not spam, notability has been discussed in a deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Februar_2018#Maximilian_Janisch_(LAE), in 2018, when there were many less independent references about me than now. An incomplete list of such references can be found through a Google Search.
Content forks do not apply.
Article is well-referenced and satisfies WP:Reliability.
See point 4.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.
Does not apply.

Best, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. Just my thoughts- the subject is clearly notable, with significant coverage in many locations, as per https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/dok/srf-dok-maximilians-welt-aus-dem-leben-eines-hochbegabten https://magazin.nzz.ch/empfehlungen/maximilian-janisch-ist-der-juengste-doktorand-der-schweiz-ld.1733390 etc. etc. especially in Swiss media- all reliable sources, all clearly about him specifically. Having read the article and considering the conflict of interest, I definitely think the article could be improved and could be considered a little too in-depth and perhaps overly supportive of the subject, but I definitely feel like the article should not be deleted. I would perhaps suggest that Mr. Janisch consider editing articles in other sections of Wikipedia rather than his own article? Doing this only makes these deletion arguments even more painful and difficult to reconcile.Spiralwidget (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep since it follows the general notability guideline. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Further Comment I have edited the article significantly in an attempt to remove material that I consider unjustified or not cited in reliable sources. Among other points:

Removal of Scientist infobox, as currently Janisch is known for his child prodigy status and coverage associated with that; replaced with infobox:Person.

Removal of Masters Thesis title; not cited reliably and did not receive significant coverage. If one is completing a PhD, you would expect that to take precedence as the thesis in the infobox.

Removal of Bibliography- not cited, and none of the titles are notable.

Change to the opening paragraph; replacement of "mathematician" with "child prodigy" and inclusion of more relevant reasons why the subject has received coverage

Removal of mentions of advocacy for young people attending University; links with some of these organisations with the subject are not justified enough, and in addition this advocacy has not received significant coverage

Removal of his mother (unreliable source, unpublished, from 1992)

Removal of his CV and website as sources

Removal of German citizenship; uncited

Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries; no need to include dates etc.

Removal of personality traits section- not relevant.

Removal of weblinks.

Please feel free to revert, continue editing, etc. if you feel these edits are not warranted. Hopefully the article now has (close to) a neutral point of view. I thought it was important to do this, as if the article is deleted I have experienced that it becomes exponentially harder to justify the article in the future; I therefore would really recommend keeping the article in this edited form, or continuing edits if you feel they would be conducive.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hello @Spiralwidget: I will answer to your edits here since I think editing the article myself would now be very much frowned upon. I would prefer continuing this discussion on the article talk page, however, so I have posted a copy of the text below there.

First off, thank you very much for your extensive work aiming at having the article be written from a WP:NPOV. Here is what I think of each of the edits:

Removal of Scientist infobox: Agree (it was not added by me).
Removal of Master's Thesis title: Agree.
Removal of Bibliography: Disagree with. The book Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik has been published in a very renowned venue (Annals of Mathematics Studies) and furthermore in the two years since its publishing as a preprint it has been quite influential in the field of mathematical fluid dynamics (see e.g. Google Scholar). We could also discuss the relevance of my autobiography. I feel that mentioning a book written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is routine and would be justified in this case.
Change of opening paragraph: Agree.
Removal of mentions of advocacy: Unfortunate but ok.
Removal of his mother: Strongly disagree. Her dissertation exists as a book, cf. Katalog für die Bibliotheken der Universität Heidelberg, you can order it here [5]. It was an influential work in its research area with over 400 citations listed on Google Scholar. Furthermore, mentioning both parents in the article about a "child prodigy" seems very reasonable.
Removal of his CV and website as sources: Agree.
Removal of German citizenship: Disagree, I am a German citizen. How would you suggest I prove my German citizenship?
Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries: Fine.
Removal of personality traits section: I very much agree with this (I took those over from the German article but they were not added by me).
Removal of weblinks: Fine, although I believe it is not unusual to have links to Webpages in Wikipedia articles.

--Maximilian Janisch (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hello again.

I feel like I do have to respond here, though I do not think it is really too appropriate for you to respond to every point in this deletion nomination- it makes it feel like a negotiation between the subject of an article and Wikipedia editors et al. (with me as the metaphorical leading author). I think it is very hard to maintain a neutral point of view if you continue commenting on the deletion discussion thread. I will make it clear that the default in this situation is a delete, and you are not helping by being so deeply involved. With that being said, I think I should respond to the points you provide here.

Removal of Bibliography: Janisch was not the leading author on Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form would be my counterargument. I see his point on his autobiography, and it is in fact used as a source in the article already. I could see the section therefore being added.

Removal of his mother: I see the point that the dissertation was an influential work in her research field. However, I would like to see a source linking Janisch with Janisch before it is added back to the article- I would expect one to exist.

Removal of German citizenship: I would suggest that someone would have to find a third-party reliable source that states clearly that he holds German citizenship.

I also would express doubt that Janisch will be able to keep his hands off the metaphorical editorial cookie jar of editing his own article. Just my two cents. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Apologies if my point-by-point reply came off as overly involved. I assure you that I am acting in WP:GF and am happy to use whatever venue you suggest to reply to content-wise issues related to my article (I'd like to do this on the article talk page) and will refrain from further interacting with this deletion discussion unless absolutely necessary --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

That's best. Let's be clear though: this is not "your article." Please see WP:OWN. If the article is not deleted. you should completely abstain from making any further changes to the article to avoid any further COI. Instead, post requests for edits on the article's Talk page and one of us will get to it. Qflib (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. The subject is only a graduate student and none of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied here. One could make a case for general notability under WP:BIO, but since this is a WP:AUTO case, the article is highly promotional in nature (I'd say a borderline G11 case) and notability is mainly asserted on scholastic/academic grounds in the article, I feel that 'delete' is the correct outcome here at this stage. If and when the subject makes substantial research impact, the matter can be revisited. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. This subject clearly and obviously does not pass WP:PROF. For someone this early in their academic career, I think significant international recognition of a major result (at the level of the Salem Prize, say) would be necessary to overcome the usual obstacles, that the work has not had time to accumulate recognition in the normal way (citations) and the researcher is too junior to disentangle their work from that of their academic advisors. The only case for notability is through WP:GNG and through media coverage of the subject as a child prodigy. All that said, I don't read German, the language of most of the coverage, so I don't feel comfortable making an evaluation of notability that way. I have some concern that the many sources may really all be echoes of a single story and that we should consider WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Sources 2 and 15 are directly about the subject, in RS. I'm not sure what else is required, a rewrite perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
To be clear I'm not contesting whether subject is notable either way (though David makes an interesting point above w.r.t. to WP:BLP1E). The argument for deletion is that this is an autobiography that would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Have read the sources given in the article in German and French. I am knowledgeable about the education system in Switzerland. I confirm that Janisch had an absolutely extraordinary path through our schooling system. When he wanted to become a student at the ETH Zurich at an early age, he was not allowed to enter as a regular student due to a minimal age requirements of the ETH, of which I am an alumnus. Translation of a comment concerning Maximilian Janisch by Michael Hengartner, president of the University Zurich in 2018, quote: «I am glad that he had some more time for his personal development.» Hengarter is president of the ETH Board by now, the supervising administration of the ETHs in Zurich and Lausanne. It is exceptional that such a personality makes a comment about a particular student. ("Das Wunderkind an der Uni." In: "SonntagsBlick", October 14, 2018 (in German). Retrieved June 26, 2024) In my opinion, Janisch is an outstanding prodigy in mathematics who fulfills WP: GNG through WP:SIGCOV.--BBCLCD (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]
@BBCLCD: May I ask what brought your attention to this discussion? – Joe (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete for not meeting the academic notability standard and otherwise being only known for one event. Essentially, the problem is that if you cut out the puffery, nothing remains. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Comment. I agree WP:PROF does not apply to me. In response to WP:BIO1E please consider that news coverage about me started when I finished the final high school exams at age 9, der Spiegel, 2013, Die Welt, 2013, Tagesanzeiger, 2013. Then continued as me being France's youngest student Le Monde, 2015, Europe1, 2015, Tagesanzeiger, 2015. Then continued when I started the Master's at age 15 Sonntagsblick, 2019, and when I started my PhD at age 18 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2023. You may argue these stories are echoes of my high school exams, but considering WP:NOTBLP1E I find it hard to argue in favour of WP:BIO1E. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Zero pass of any categories of WP:Prof. No evidence of achievement yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Keep. Straightforward GNG pass, which trumps all special categories: as Maximilian Janisch points out in his latest comment above, there is extended coverage in multiple reliable sources (Blick being a possible exception) from 2013 to 2023. In addition, there are enough biographical details to write more than a cv. It's unfortunate that the article was written as an autobiography; I note that Spiralwidget has done some rewriting (summarised above) and may do more myself to make full use of the sources. But he's notable, so deletion and recreation is not appropriate, particularly since policy does not actually forbid autobiographies. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep, by Yngvadottir's reasoning –Tobias (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep - Passes GNG, although I think it is remarkably inappropriate for the creator to be the subject and for the subject to be participating in this debate. May this article wear the COI badge of shame for all time. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Not if you mean the article "A major contributor to this article appears...", that should be removed if/when appropriate (though not by User:Maximilian Janisch). The talkpage cc, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per Yngvadottir. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep - the subject would not meet notability standards at all if it weren't for the subject's age. I do feel that this is an example of WP:BIO1E - the one event being the subject's age. Here, the press coverage for the student achieving at a series of young ages what would otherwise be nice, but non-notable, achievements (earning degrees, entering grad school) is the only thing that generates notability. Technically these could be viewed as separate events, although I personally don't see it that way - so that's GNG for you. Anyway, I hope that this subject's future is bright and many more reasons for their notability become clear in time. Qflib (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Paul K. Davis (historian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Can't find any other sources in an outside search other than one source in the article. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, United States of America, and Texas. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Despite the unscholarly ring of some of his book titles I found thirteen published book reviews of four of the books, enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep This military historian passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Keep: Book reviews are fine, seems to pass AUTHOR. Source 5 shows multiple reviews in multiple journals, that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete I don't think this person meets either NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. For the latter, his books, save one, have been cited in the middle to low two figures. The other one was cited ~160 times. I'm also not convinced that the fact of having a book reviewed in what are essentially trade journals suffices for AUTHOR. I am unable to get to the EBSCO journals but the fact that most of the reviews are in Library Journal and School Library Journal do not tell me that this is a major author. Like Publisher's Weekly, these are non-academic publications that generally provide short "advice" type reviews (buy this/don't buy this). Looking up "Encyclopedia of Invasions and Conquests" in WorldCat, it's held in 5 WC libraries. It's hard to know what this means since school libraries are rarely found in WC, but I would not consider this person a notable author by any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]
All the EBSCO reviews should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. That might be relevant if you completely ignored the two substantial academic reviews of Ends and Means in academic journals, the three of Masters of the Battlefield (counting H-net as equivalent to an academic journal), and the two mainstream-media reviews of Masters of the Battlefield. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Most of these reviews indicates that the books are NOT considered major contributions to the field. For example: "This book is a generally accessible book for a mid-brow audience as opposed to a scholarly work." (That's H-War) The Michigan Review states: "Serious students of military history, however, will find here neither a dependable reference book nor an original contribution to the scholarship of command across the ages." The two for Ends and Means are one page each, and one states "Its principle weakness lies in a failure to draw in literature on the Middle East, and especially the Arabic results in gaps and misconceptions. It is nevertheless a strong study of the modus operandi of the British in the area, and of the muddle and misinformation which lay behind their eventual success". This sounds to me like the reviewers are not seeing these books as being major contributions to the field. Nothing in NACADEMIC nor AUTHOR states that if a book (or a few books) get ANY reviews the author is notable. Both of those policies include much more rigorous criteria, and among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics. This person clearly fails that. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Nothing in NAUTHOR says anything about the reviews being positive, nor about the reviewed books being scholarly works. They merely have to provide depth of content about the books they review. Your quote "among those is at least some esteem from fellow academics" is completely false. There is nothing in our criteria that reflects that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Marco Magnani[edit]

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

Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [6] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [7] [8] [9] [10]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [11] [12] [13]

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [14][15] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [16] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC. All in all WP:TOOSOON. – Ploni^💬 00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]
- Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. --hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020. There is also a in-depth article from 2009. I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article. – notwally (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Redirect and merge. BLP1E strongly applies here, and the subject does not meet any NPROF criteria. However, there is significant coverage in 2009, surrounding her name, that could be merged. Considering how often two sources with 3–4 sentences of routine, often non-independent or non-RS,[17][18] transfer coverage each, or even merely the unevidenced presumption that such sources exist,[19] [20] pass as "GNG" for athletes,[21] it's only fair that the far more extensive biographical coverage here would count for something. JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

François Thibaut[edit]

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [22]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Carl Faingold[edit]

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

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]
That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Troy Stetina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [23] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[]

~~Comment~~ Strong Delete. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below
* This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher.
* And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales
There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]
- Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
- Is this an article he wrote?
- 1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
- The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here.
Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet.
The articles below are relaible,

OnMilwaukee, Apr 07, 2005 - Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home By Bobby Tanzilo

Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 - Interview with TROY STETINA: Music truly is the world’s best hope to cross borders, cross cultures and show humanity what we have in common. Interview by Mohsen Fayyazi

Maximum Ink Madison's music magazine, September 2012 - Second Soul
AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL BY MIKE HUBERTY

Guitariste Metal, 3 Octobre 2014 - Troy Stetina interview
And these below are helpful,

The Journal Times, Sep 25, 2013 - Center Stage /Oversoulss /5-19 - By Loreen Mohr

The Journal Times, - Center Stage/Oversoulss - By Loreen Mohr
Easily notable! He's had a huge influence on a good amount of major notable guitarists. I can find more but I have been drawn into this as I do sometimes and have neglected other stuff.
Thanks
Karl Twist (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.
Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page,
According to La Scena Musicale, Stetina was booked along with Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, and Jonathan Kreisberg to appear at the Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival which ran from August 13 to 15, 2015, at the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts. La Scena Musicale, 3 August 2015 - International Guitar Legends Headlining Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival: 2015 Artists include Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, Jonathan Kreisberg, Troy Stetina
It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.

Karl Twist (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.

Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.

You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.

Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]
On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Well, the Modern Drummer review isn't what I would call short. It's an acceptable size. It's not supposed to be about an "in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities". It's a review of his work.

Ok if one of them such as La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. There's enough of the other! And as I mentioned with Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert saying "but together they peek just over the edge for me", I go further and say there's enough reliable stuff to sit him on top of the table!

Sorry my bad about the Journal Times. Yes, it was one article. There was the additional updated page.

Well the WP:NOTINHERITED would be the card to pull out if there were no other good supporting info about him. But thankfully there is! The point I made about him being associated with notable individuals was that he is regarded as prominent.

“metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are possibly blog type in format. But the first one has been used to reference around fifty+ pages here, (most of them about heavy metal no surprise) and is a respected source of info.

Nothing suspicious or promotional about the German page for Troy Stetina. Because he's been so prolific with his published works, the searches get flooded with them and for someone who has German as a first language and English as second, this is how a page would be likely to add up. I'm not going to make any assertions about lazy editing because I'm not going to judge an editor's ability. I'd just go with the language thing.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Well since the topic of this article is Troy Stetina, the Modern Dummer review fails WP:SIGCOV. There’s no material about Stetina specifically. If you really think metal shock Finland is an RS, then I think I’ll open up a discussion on RSN. Also, I never mentioned the German Wikipedia page—I was referencing the Maximum Ink article that has a link at the bottom directing us to Stetina’s en WP page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]
I opened a RSN discussion on the above source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#metalshockfinland Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The Modern Drummer article doesn't fail anything! It's just a good review of a release of his. A review in a well-respected publication. Actually, you said earlier (18:29, 11 June 2024) that it was written by him. It was actually written by Matt Pieken. And actually, I believe that somewhere here someone said that there were no reviews of his work. Well there's the Matt Pieken review in Modern Drummer and another which I have to re-find. Incidentally, Pieken has done reviews for artists such as Jane's Addiction. And OK, minus one Metal Shock by Mohsen Fayyazi if it be so. Well, we still have good enough on him to support the Keep status.
Yes, I see that you've opened an RSN discussion on Metal Shock. OK, what can I say.
The fact that Stetina has written for two of the two of the biggest selling guitar mags is additional proof of his status. He was employed by Guitar One and wrote for Guitar World. Just a quick grab of the Ozwinds site where it says, "Go inside the mind of one of the most accomplished guitar instructors in history", you said something previously that this was copied from his website. Well, perhaps one or two others may have done this, or he has copied on to his website what has been said about him. Most to the majority of sites refer to him as something similar, I guess this is because this is what he is!
To tell the truth I'm not that keen on heavy metal or this type of music. I had heard of Stetina in the past but didn't know that much about him. If I didn't think he was notable I would have just gone for a re-direct or maybe wouldn't have bothered at all.
Karl Twist (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

I really don’t think where he was employed or what magazines he written for are relevant for notability. Do you have any other sources to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing.
I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet and different assessments of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy	Book authored by Stetina			✘ No
Fretboard Mastery [With CD] by Troy Stetina	Book authored by Stetina			✘ No
Guitar Noise	Stetina is responding to a reader's comment	Appears to be a WP:BLOG		✘ No
Modern Drummer Issue 166			~ This is a review of one of Stetina's books. There is no mention/WP:SIGCOV of Stetina at all	~ Partial
Guitar One Magazine February 2006	Article authored by Stetina			✘ No
OnMilwaukee Interview	WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject			✘ No
Metalshockfinland	WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject	Seems to be a randomWP:SPS		✘ No
Maximum Ink Interview	WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject	? A non-notable, local music magazine. Can't find editorial polices, editorial board, etc.. The interview also contains a link to Stetina's Wikipedia page at the bottom and links to purchase the subject's CDs. Appears WP:QS and WP:PROMOTIONAL		✘ No
guitariste-metal.fr	WP:PRIMARY-sourced interview with the subject	Appears to be a random WP:SPS		✘ No
Ad in La Seine Musicale	WP:SPONSORED-content by the band	WP:SPONSORED-content by the band		✘ No
The Journal Times				✔ Yes
Billboard Jan 1995			Single, passing mention of Stetina of a video he hosted	✘ No
www.ultimate-guitar.com	? Likely a press release	As per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, Ultimate Guitar is only reliable for “articles written by the "UG Team" or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.” This particular reference has no bylined author so it likely a press release/WP:UGC.		✘ No
Musicradar	Interview with one of Stetina's bandmates		~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak keep as there is enough coverage in total including prose part of interviews, and a review for a narrow pass of WP:GNG. Also Ultimate Guitar is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources although the particular reference is possibly a press release so doesn't help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]
Interviews don’t count towards GNG as they are a primary source. Also Ultimate Guitar is only reliable for “articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.” As you stated, the reference is likely a press release. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Hi again Dr. Swag Lord, your created document isn't an official guide to follow! Also, it isn't accurate!

Actually, the OnMilwaukee Interview that you mention (properly named:"Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home" By Bobby Tanzilo) is an article-interview combo. The article part is sufficient to support the page.
The Maximum Ink Interview (Properly named:"Second Soul

AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL" BY MIKE HUBERTY ) is an article and interview combo. The article section is sufficient to support the page

The La Seine Musicale wasn't sponsored by the band. If sponsored as you say as per "LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee.", which band as you say?? Was it Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, or Jonathan Kreisberg?
The Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 interview is an interview yes. It has been used around 50 plus times here to reference articles. I'm not putting it forth as a supporter for the page.
I'm trying to find the article that goes with this eBay photo of Troy Stetina. The photographer was George P. Koshollek and it is date-stamped FR DEC 5 1986 as per on the back. The cut-out stub says "Roll over, Beethoven. Here comes Troy Stetina" and has -Sentinel photo beside it. Could it be from the Milwaukee Sentinel?
I even more stand by what I said that Stetina is a notable subject. His being a writer for two of the largest guitar mags in the US as well as holding guitar clinics in events that have internationally known prestigious artists is just one aspect. Many others ... etc. etc. etc. Below is an interesting indicator from Jstor,
BOOK CHAPTER
But That Doesn’t Help Me on Guitar!: Unraveling the Myth of the
Self-Taught Metal Guitarist
Kevin EbertFrom: Connecting Metal to Culture: Unity in Disparity, Intellect (2017)
Edition: 1
...and Heavy Metal Lead Guitar Vol. 1&2 by Troy Stetina are two such examples. Also noteworthy is his 1991,
Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar In an interview with Guitariste Métal, Stetina was asked about his sales figure
he replied: Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar is the biggest seller now. Maybe 300,000...
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Zack Cooper[edit]

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

I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[]

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[]

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[]

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [24] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:

with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.

...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Keep. Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers. What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page. The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area. In this sense, the subject is clearly notable. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus". As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Delete: I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Hallvard Lillehammer (via WP:PROD on 25 June 2024)