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

Ryan S Sultan

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

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics or professionals. I cannot find independent, reliable coverage about their work or achievements Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. New to this. What is required for independent reliable coverage? I see links to edu and gov websites and NBC news. Please help me understand what our criteria is. I am deeply interested in supporting wiki. Infoseeker89 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Tabin

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Fairweather Foundation is a small non-notable foundation. Risker (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, England, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Fairweather Foundation is relevant to Geoff Tabin's notability. It is just the funding source of his current chair position, which seems relatively minor when compared to other things that make him notable such as him co-founding the Himalayan Cataract Project (the other founder has a page), being the fourth person to reach the top of the seven summits, and helping invent bungee jumping.

I believe Geoff is very notable based on the guidelines I have read. Beyond what I said above, there is a book about him and Sanduk (second suns), he himself is a published author, and there are articles written about him in magazines such as national geographic (ie https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/restoring-vision-for-south-sudan-dispatches-from-the-duk-lost-boys-clinic). Moreover, he was on the cover for the now defunct National Geographic Adventure magazine, who's Wikipedia page uses his image!

If there are other ways in which the article fails to pass notability thresholds, please let me know what I am missing, but again, I think the Fairweather Foundation is totally irrelevent. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, using the news button ont the nominated for deletion box shows articles about Dr. Tabin from CBS, The Economist, and Outside magazine. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find I cannot agree with the nomination. Subject appears to have a named chair at a major institution, and evidently has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per [1]. ResonantDis_tortion 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tang (teacher)

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

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. Only sources on him are from the school district he works in and an interview. A before search yields no results. I do not believe this educator should qualify for WP:TEACHER, since according to the award's page, it is alloted to 1,500 teachers, making it not a "highly prestigious academic award", since Canada's population is only 40 million. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage of the award is strictly local; the award is only a $5000 prize. While still a nice amount, not a large award on the level of a Nobel. Outside of the one award won, nothing for notability for this teacher. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan S. Kornacki

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

BLP shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Science, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Ciocan

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

BLP with no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a very low-cited field. May pass WP:Prof#C8 with a rather recent journal. The nominator has been on a deletion spree today. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #8. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the case for WP:PROF#C8 as founding co-editor-in-chief of a notable journal is clearest, but he also has a weak case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published book reviews [2] [3] [4]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James McEvoy (teacher)

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

Not clear why this biography was created. Career as a teacher does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia per WP:BIO Seaweed (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable at all. Probably created by a relative as a WP:MEMORIAL. Article is just a close paraphrasing of his obituary (which was likely based on what his relatives said about him). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for notability as a military person or an educator. The paraphrasing of the obituary isn't helping. I can't find anything else about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, created by SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have nothing to work off of here... Snowycats (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be WP:CSD#G7: article provides no indication of what he did that might have had any significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Garuda ^Talk! 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Volschenk

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

Normally published, commercially employed (non-academia) zoologist with a number of described taxa. There is nothing here that says encyclopedic notability - no WP:GNG coverage, no honours or prestigious positions, no recognized exceptional contributions to the field. A productive arachnologist but not encyclopia material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphanie Alenda

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

Delete or Modify Wikipedia is not a Scholar Profile website, It denotes an advertising campaign scheme that the same user has three articles around the same author in different wikipedias, and at least it must be revised with critical focus. Fitmoos (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitmoos: It is illogical to say that there is a publicity campaign scheme, since various reliable sources are used to prove the relevance of the biographee, that is, her sociological analysis of one of the main political spectrums in Chile, which has even caught the attention of progressive media that have consulted her.

You also claimed a few days ago that the articles about the biographee and her book were definitely deleted, when this is currently being discussed due to how controversial your request for speedy deletion was. If it was to be deleted, it must at least go through a discussion phase that you obstructed (apart from that, the fact that its deletion is being discussed in one language does not automatically mean that it should be the same in a Wikipedia in another language, since they have their own rules). Carigval.97 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The biographee in question has a substantial number of reiliable sources and has been referenced in multiple academic publications and literary works (see this). The user who posted the template has not given any reasons for why he did so. --Igallards7 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reasons for deletion are arbitraries, because Alenda meets the following reasons according to the criteria of "Wikipedia:Notability (academics)": 1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources –There are authors who study the right or extreme right according to their guidelines–; 3) The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics) –in this case, Alenda has been member of the ISA or the IPSA–; 6) The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society –Alenda is a founding member and head of the sociology program in the Andrés Bello University (UNAB)–; and 7) The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity —She has influenced in politicians, the Chilean press and other scholars—. --Carigval.97 (Carigval.97) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:PROF, Professor Alenda, in addition to being an encyclopedic contribution due to her academic position, is a member of important sociological organizations and founded a school of her discipline -- 6UNK3R (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitmoos: it looks like you started the nomination for this page, but never completed it. Can you please complete the process, including adding your rationale for deletion? If this isn't done, it should be ~~speedily kept~~ as an invalid AfD. pburka (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitmoos: I've moved your comment into the deletion rationale. I'm going to fix this AfD for you, but next time you must carefully follow ALL of the steps in WP:AFDHOWTO. pburka (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, France, and Chile. pburka (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination advances no valid deletion rationale. Wikipedia does indeed include biographies of scholars and academics, the existence of articles in other-language Wikipedias is beside the point here (each language has its own inclusion standards and one editor being involved in multiple languages does not prove WP:COI), and an unsupported assertion that the article needs "a critical focus" is not grounds for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soner Baskaya

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NPROF. Very low h-index and no indication of WP:SIGCOV (alternative criteria when there's no indication of notability per WP:NPROF). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not my field but there are several fairly highly cited papers in GS[5] (201, 198, 116). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nawa Raj Subba

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nawa Raj Subba

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

Not meeting WP:BLP. Not a single in depth coverage of the subject in any neutral source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Nepal. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: There has been no independent news media coverage or reliable sources about this person since the article was created in 2009 and salted in 2017. Subject does not pass GNG or NBIO Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. He has published stuff buy nobody seems to have cited it. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBIO. Salt, based on repeated attempts to create the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Much of notability stems from that one event about Mt. Rainier height matter and there's not been much coverage beyond the immediate time periods following the matter, failing WP:20YT and since further coverage on this hasn't really developed, it's WP:TOOSOON. For other things, it's not quite at GNG meeting level.

The article was successfully deleted with unanimous consensus only two months ago. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) And due to that, with salt please. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this through the academics and educators deletion sorting list but as an assistant teaching professor at Seattle University [6] with only one well-cited publication [7] he definitely does not pass WP:PROF. Any notability is going to have to rest on his mountaineering and mountain metrology efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given my conflict of interest, I won't weigh in on the matter. I'll instead ping other users who were involved in the AfC process, including @DJ Cane, @Cabrils, and @Theroadislong. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I saw the AfC Draft was accepted into the mainspace, I got a little too excited and treated editing this article like any other article on Wikipedia. With that said, given the COI, I knew not to do any content-related edits unless proposed through the talk page, so I did quick edits that I believed to be permissible per COI uncontroversial edits, including adding categories and a grammatical fix. The impulsive edit was the removal of the multiple issues template which I acknowledge was a controversial/disruptive edit given my COI and inherent bias. I apologize for that edit and will not make the same mistake in the future, in making impulsive/disruptive edits that aren't clearly permitted in the COI uncontroversial edits section. If you need more information about my COI, please see the article talk page. Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification would be appreciated on the bizarre coincidence (noted here [8]) whereby KnowledgeIsPower and an account calling itself 'Eric Gilbertson' both began posting on the Mount Rainier talk page promoting the same pro-Gilbertson agenda within days of each other.

WP:SOCKPUPPETRY or WP:MEATPUPPETRY is clearly indicated, especially as the Gilbertson account appears to have been created solely to make those posts.

Your disclosure on COI clearly does not adequately cover the links between yourself and Gilbertson. Axad12 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Axad12: as they were involved in the previous AfD. Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. no pass of WP:Prof and nobility from WP:GNG not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: This article was accepted through the AfC process. Beyond the BLP1E that the nominator mentioned, did you consider the sources such as Nat Geo Poland, The Times of London, Süddeutsche Journal, Tages-Anzeiger Journal, American Alpine Club. If he didn't pass WP:GNG, the article wouldn't have gotten through AfC. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing "this article was accepted through the AfC process" used as a reason for keeping an article. It is not a reason. All it means is that some reviewer thought this article might survive a deletion discussion. But now we get to find out if they were correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, I was that reviewer and you are correct, I thought only that it might survive a deletion discussion, I could be wrong, I have no strong opinion either way. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: After thinking it over a little, if the general consensus comes to the conclusion Gilbertson isn't notable, how about a merge/redirect into Highpointing? Just like Ginge Fullen was the first individual to reach the highest points of each European country, Gilbertson was the first to reach the highest point in each Stan and North American country and is therefore important to the sport of highpointing (and in my opinion has the enough media coverage to warrant a mention there). I'm not saying merge this whole article into highpointing, just the bits important to the sport.

In my opinion, however, if Ginge Fullen can get a Wikipedia article, I think Gilbertson should also. This AfD should be viewed from the lens of Gilbertson's climbing/highpointing/surveying media coverage, since from the academic perspective I agree he's non-notable. Obviously my COI gives me a bias in favor of Gilbertson, but figured I'd throw this idea out there. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a suggestion. Why don't you stop using Wikipedia as a platform to promote Gilbertson? This edit [9] which you made recently, removing multiple tags from the Gilbertson article, was a disgrace for a user with almost 3,000 edits - especially one who has previously been brought to COIN [10] and had been pointed to WP:COI. The edit is absolutely typical of the work of bad faith conflicted users such as yourself (as was the timing of the edit).

I also suggest that you stop trying to interfere with this AfD and instead allow non-conflicted users to decide what should happen to this article.

If you have a problem with the article for Ginge Fullen (or any other article) then nominate it to AfD as well. If one article can be located which doesn't comply with GNG then that isn't an argument for the further creation of non-notable articles. Instead it is an argument for the article which doesn't comply with GNG to be deleted. Axad12 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. The subject clearly does not satisfy WP:GNG. The article is the creation of a user who seems intent on promoting Gilbertson and thus salting seems the only way to prevent further re-creation. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I participated in the original AfD as well as the AfC. Since I was directly pinged here, I figured I ought to say something. I'm on the fence about whether or not Gilbertson is notable at this time and will refrain from voting. That said, I feel the creator of the article has been making positive steps to correct problematic editing and feel that there is some dogpiling going on here that is counter productive. If kept, this article needs further trimming to decrease the dominance of primary sources and sources derived from primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Cane (talk • contribs)

In what sense is pointing out the issues with the user's editing counter productive? Earlier today the user has voluntarily agreed to stop editing around the subject of Gilbertson, which is clearly a positive outcome all round. If you prefer to allow COI editing, meatpuppetry, etc., to continue without comment (including at COIN, where you made a very similar comment) then I'm afraid I cannot agree. You only have to look at the resolution to the discussions at the user's talk page and my own talk page to see the entirely positive and amicable outcome here. Axad12 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DJ Cane:, Have you not seen them making another attempt at inserting borderline run of the mill person Eric Gilbertson into very high view count, indisputably highly important and notable articles such as the country of Uzbekistan and Mt. Rainier ? Also, the draft they submitted just a few weeks ago was full of unacceptable WP:QS primary sources and self published material which they should've known better by now to not use as source. This hints towards just an attempt to re-submit as close to the original version as possible. Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I said I am moving on from this, just wanted to clarify the above.

For the record, I will state my reasoning for adding Gilbertson-related content to the articles you mentioned was so that his article wasn't an orphan. I (wrongly) figured it would be permissible to attribute the survey to him if his article was in the mainspace. In drafting the current article I did my best to reduce fluff, but I recognize that the natural bias arising from my COI reduces my standard of editing in both instances.

As I stated to @Axad12, I will no longer edit anything Gilbertson-related nor insert any Gilbertson-related content anywhere else in the encyclopedia. However, per @Graywalls suggestion here, I may submit one COI edit request to the highpointing article pertaining to a mention of Gilbertson. If it is declined by a neutral editor, then I won't do repeat COI edit requests.

Axad12, I know you suggested to me here that I don't do any COI edit requests (and I initially agreed), but I feel one COI edit request is a reasonable, non-disruptive way to get a neutral editor to decide if Gilbertson-related content belongs on a non-BLP article. Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have been involved with the draft page and multiple discussions with the author on my Talk page. I am of the view that the page is WP:TOOSOON. The serious COI is concerning. Cabrils (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Kern

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

It appears that this Calgary-based photographer and academic does not meet NARTIST nor GNG for inclusion. It has been almost entirely edited by single purpose accounts that have only edited this article along with a series of WP:SPA IPs from Calgary that added unsourced personal/professional content (now largely cleaned up). The sourcing is almost entirely non-independent primary sources. The article was recently PROD'ed, then de-prodded by one of the IPs. Then IPs from the same range twice removed two maintenance tags (notability, primary sources) without fixing the issues. There is one article on him in the Real Estate section of a local lifestyle paper which is largely an interview (primary). This leaves one good independent source in McCleans on a pinhole camera he uses with his students. I can't find anything to substantiate NACADEMIC, zero hits on Google Scholar. Basically the article shows that he is a photographer with an MFA degree, and a teaching job WP:MILL, but is he notable per WP-criteria? Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, Photography, and Canada. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability of any sort. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails GNG, NARTIST, NACADEMIC. No acceptable sources are available that would indicate notability for this person. I am not seeing anything that shows this subject qualifies for an independent article on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that his work is in the collections of multiple notable museums, has been the subject of significant non-local press, or would otherwise pass WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I see this reliable source, but it falls short of significant coverage in multiple sources. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sadiq Malkani

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

Fails WP:PROF. This guy is mostly known for naming dubious species of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals in predatory journals like SCIRP. Looking at his scholar citations shows extensive self-citation and very few citations from independent researchers for the vast majority of his paleontology research papers (with the notable exception of "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan" published in Science in 2001, but he is only 1 of 5 authors and is not the corresponding author). His research is in general widely ignored by paleontologists and has had little impact on the field. His geology-related citations look very run of the mill and not enough to pass PROF either. Also fails WP:GNG as no significant independent coverage. This story in the Pakistan Express Tribune [11] seems like passing coverage to me and not enough for notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science and Pakistan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Further evidence of the Enshittification of academic research. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alketa Spahiu

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

Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NPROF. (NPP action) C F A 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would suggest draftification as an unsourced BLP, but that's already been done once and contested, and I can find no evidence of academic or author notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was in draft for a while. Not only is it completely unsourced (and I found no coverage on a search), but it is totally lacking in specifics that would indicate possible notability. Seems to be a WP:MILL professor, and nothing encyclopedic would be lost by deleting this. The author of the article knows so much about this person's personal life that it is very likely COI, if not the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — agree with the above and even with the benefit of doubt to the author, there is no notability at all, no sources, no coverage at all of the subject anywhere to be found. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and apparently a total of 2 cites on GS. We normally expect 100s if not 1000s. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Peggy Batchelor

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

Contested draftification of an article on a non-notable actor. There is no reliable source for the WP:OR claim that she was the oldest-ever actor who had appeared in Doctor Who (not that that is even a claim to notability). The source for this claim appears to be a Doctor Who wiki. She fails WP:NACTOR as her handful of roles appear to be minor parts, and they are sourced to IMDb, an unreliable source. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a couple of articles in a hyper-local village newsletter ([12], [13]), another WP:SPS ([14]), and a self-published as-told-to quasi-autobiography. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, I looked into her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts, but it's not a rare honor (there are 31,000 active Fellows) and can be acquired by online application and payment of a fee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Hello. I understand. However, what I do not understand is how some articles such as this one are accepted but not others. This seems like discrimination. There are people as notable as Peggy Batchelor or less notable than her who have pages. Please explain. Spectritus (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not discrimination in any way. It's about independent, secondary, reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Wendover News is not likely an independent source. Peggy Batchelor's as-told-to, self-published autobiography is not a reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make Batchelor any more notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Wikipedia condemns almost all of them?

The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Wikipedia does not condemn almost all sources; it has specific standards, and the ones you used in this article don't meet them. If you have questions about individual sources or sourcing more generally, please visit WP:RSN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, acting roles are minor, would not pass notability for actors. A voice role in Doctor Who isn't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was featured in only 1-2 episodes of each TV show she was in and played relatively minor roles in films. The article itself seems to be fixated on the (likely original research) trivia of her having once been the oldest person who had been a cast member of Doctor Who, which as we discussed in this AfD, isn't particularly relevant or notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note I agree this would be better in draft space. She also had a stage career, which has not been included in the article yet. I am sourcing and adding references and information, and will then consider whether she meets notability guidelines. If she is, the article needs editing, as it reads more like a eulogy than an encyclopaedic entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having found and added sources, I think that she does meet WP:BASIC. There are multiple, independent sources, some substantial, some less so, but they add up. There is coverage across her life in both national newspapers and local papers around the UK (around England, and also Northern Ireland and Scotland). The article could still use some work - I'll work on the lede and info box. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Wikipedia Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
- A mention of her name in a radio programme cast
- A single mention in a local newspaper's stage play review: Outstanding performer in a capable cast was Peggy Batchelor who admirably sustained her role of a fussy specimen of nice womanhood with mothering tendencies towards the male Godfrey Bond turned in a splendid piece of characterisation of tne class beloved to English comedy writers the butler who is incapable of being surprised and is always adequate to meet all emergencies
- A user-generated source on the history of a local theater club
- A single reference in a local news story
None of these adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Can you better characterize the British Newspaper Archive sources so editors can properly evaluate them? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diether Roderich Reinsch

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

~~Non-notable, article has no references, and as far as I can see, none can be found on searching anywhere DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing AfD, see below[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would the nominator care to comment on the subject's citation record in this low cited field? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
He does have a lot of works in his field, but nothing I have seen after a WP:Before suggests that he has had a significant impact in his discipline, nor does anything suggest he meets any of the other criteria in WP:NPROF either- and I especially checked all the criteria in case anything came up. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple reviews of multiple of his works available on JSTOR: JSTOR 41121771, JSTOR 27687156, JSTOR 27626011, JSTOR 41048102, JSTOR 23463955, JSTOR 27689329, JSTOR 20861469. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 of basis of citations in this very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw I couldn't find the reviews presented by User:David Eppstein (thanks), I should have searched differently, therefore withdrawing deletion nom DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

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

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC even without the political candidacy, with coverage such as the independent review for her book Inside Congressional Committees (Columbia University Press, 2023) in the academic journal Congress & the Presidency and the 2010 article about her environmental activism in the Jerusalem Post. She is also quoted frequently in the national media in the U.S. as an expert on Congress and elections. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Ally Louks

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|username}}.

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Literature, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that this article borders on WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON (this only started one month ago). But the coverage is from a large variety of sources, and they aren't just paraphrased carbon copies of one article. Multiple articles discuss her at length as the subject of the article, not just a passing mention of "Hey, this person did something newsworthy, thanks for the click." The article is well sourced and is as WP:NPOV as can be when discussing a divisive topic. Angryapathy (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing Angryapathy, there is a large variety of reputable sources (some not even referenced in the Wikipedia article). She even has a fair amount of International coverage; a quick google search shows her being mentioned in Newspapers from Ireland, India, the United States, The U.K., and more. This wasn't the kind of virality that's just a tiktok video of someone saying something salacious that gets big and then dies down - she went viral because of her body of work and research, which has now spun off new discussions and even more coverage of Dr. Louks outside of the initial moment, and into far more mainstream and traditional media sources than one would expect for something that is a mere viral moment. Additionally, I don't believe Dr. Louks will be otherwise low-profile because she's gained over 120,000 followers on twitter, and has already had other tweets about her research and opinions (not directly related to the original viral tweet) go viral in their own right; I think we're just at the beginning of her notability, not that it's already over. I can understand the idea that we may be bordering on 'too soon,' but I think there is enough substantial coverage talking about her as a person and a researcher, not just one moment, to justify keeping the article. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey @Darth Stabro, I've been staying out of this discussion because of the mistake you noted above. I don't want anything to get any more confusing, or to get in anymore accidental wikipedia trouble. Also, I know I'm reasonably new to wikipedia with really not that many edits. (I clearly may have bitten off more than I can chew signing up purely to be like 'I'm going to get more women on wikipedia!' not understanding all the work that entails, and all the nuances and details of wikipedia articles, which is why I, at least currently, don't plan to be getting in super deep or doing a ton more edits - but that's kind of irrelevant to this particular discussion, so, anyway...)

All that being said, I have been reading some of these links people have been leaving with wikipedia policies... and I'm wondering if this discussion ends up in delete (which I can't totally tell right now if it will or not), but if it does, is there a world in which - since people seem to keep discussing whether this is about an event or about Dr. Ally Louks herself - is there a world in which instead of deleting, this could become an article about this event i.e. 'the backlash of Ally Louks PhD graduation' or like, I dunno, whatever title made the most sense?

It seems everyone agrees there was tons of coverage in mainstream, reputable sources. And in Notability - events, it says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." This was covered in numerous articles across many countries in plenty of diverse sources. As far as I can tell, those wikipedia rules also seems to argue events coverage is more notable with "thematic connection or contextual information" and I think many of these sources have themes and contextual information - whether it's positioning this within a larger conversation about sexism in academia, or whether it's bringing in elements of Dr. Louks' thesis itself with talk about olfactory ethics and what that means.

I know that not every event that gets coverage gets a page. I also recognize I may not fully be understanding the rules and therefore perhaps unable to apply them correctly. But I'm just trying to make sense of all the points of view and see if that's a possible compromise for the group? (Unless the consensus ends up being keep, at which point, you can ignore this idea/question, because I really don't want to make anything more complicated than it need be). MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E issues. Arguments that there are "a large variety of sources" or "international coverage" do not counteract the demands of WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:
- Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all independent sources in the article are only about her going viral.
- The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, the article subject has given a few interviews to news outlets about her viral post, but otherwise remains WP:LOWPROFILE. This Washington Post article makes it clear that she does not seek media attention: Ally Louks could be considered the antithesis of “extremely online.” The low-key literature scholar is generally more focused on her research and supervising undergrads at Cambridge University than on growing her once-small social media following or posting on X more than a few times a year.
- The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, going viral on social media may be a significant event in a person's life, but not significant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Astaire (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not as of today have the sustained coverage over a lengthy period of time to meet the WP:GNG, and as of now is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards keep and disagree with the argument that she is unlikely to continue being in the public eye. Academics typically increase their notability over the course of their career through publications etc, even if they're fairly low profile, which I'd argue the subject is not at this point given her continued vitality beyond the initial moment. At most, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Starklinson 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: Let me re-word as my point is being misunderstood – an earlier post mentioned WP:LOWPROFILE, my point was that even notable academics are often not very high profile, despite this one being unusually high profile for her position as a result of her thesis' vitality. Starklinson (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "continued vitality"? All the coverage is from a <1-month period, that's nowhere near the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED. She's also explicitly stated she wishes to be low-profile, that's exactly what BLP1E covers. And we don't even have any evidence that she's staying in academia at this point—simply defending a thesis doesn't mean she will continue to do research or that that research will be impactful. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:CRYSTAL reasoning and there are no sources demonstrating the subject has "continued vitality" beyond her initial viral post. While academics usually become more notable over time, most academics are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and there is no indication she meets any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When the Washington Post, the Economist, the BBC, the Independent, and even Forbes are writing about or interviewing you about your thesis I’d say you’re a pretty notable academic at that point. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, in the context of WP:BLP1E the number of sources does not matter as they are all covering her for a single event; that is mostly what is at debate here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is, they’ve determined that she is notable in the WP:NACADEMIC realm. I didn’t say the number of sources contributed to it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 8 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC does she meet? Astaire (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How have they determined she is notable as an academic....? They are interviewing her strictly because her thesis went mildly viral, which definitely does not meet the standards for NPROF C7. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BLP1E is not applicable here anymore because she is no longer WP:LOWPROFILE given the number of high-profile interviews already given. Her case is very similar to Rachael Gunn. Contributor892z (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, actually, I think this is a great point. I agree in the similarity to Rachael Gunn. I also agree with the comments about the breadth of coverage and Ally Louks' general level of notability at this point. After reading through these comments, I have been convinced with the keep side.

Additionally, while I know random tweets can't be included in an article and don't fully make an argument, I searched tweets about her and numerous people are talking about the idea of how her work has opened up a whole new framework for people, and it's added talk of smell into the discourse in a way that people seem to feel hasn't really been done before. With such strong public opinion, it's hard to imagine this is a flash in the pan type of thing that won't continue to get coverage on some level at certain points?

I also think, to the person who said Ally Louks wants to be low-profile, her actions don't seem to state wanting to shy away completely from the media, public etc. She has a lively twitter presence for over 100,000 followers and consistently comments on many things where media and smell interact. Yeah, maybe she's not going to live directly in the public eye, or give out a lot of personal information, but I think she is still engaging with the public re: her work in a way that does not detract from her (publicly) notability, especially as an academic who wouldn't really be expected to do much in the public eye except engage with the public re: their work.

Lastly, Ally Louks recently put out a tweet begging people to stop requesting her thesis from her university because she's getting hundreds of emails a day about it. Again, I know we can't rely on social media, but if someone's thesis is being requested that much... she seems like a notable academic to me. (And I know 'notable' doesn't just mean popular, and to wikipedia standards it's more about coverage in secondary sources, but I think she crosses that bar, as she does have the mainstream coverage to back up notability, as far as I can tell.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deeply misunderstanding what "low-profile" means for BLP1E... All of those arguments are exactly why we do not evaluate notability based on "popularity" in unreliable sources and absolutely do not gauge whether someone is low-profile based on their Twitter followers. WP:SUSTAINED requires sustained coverage for all topics anyway, and this burst of activity does not qualify. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator." As we've seen from the links in the Ally Louks article and the links Contributor892z's listed (and other links online), Ally Louks has actively given interviews where I think we could argue she has been a "notable commentator" because she hasn't just talked about the event. She has mentioned areas of her thesis, what it's about, and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia, sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.

Additionally, in the promotional activities section of WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high-profile individual "and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." I would personally argue that having a twitter account where she tweets (publicly to an audience of over 100,000) a number of tweets making jokes, making valid points, or sometimes even sometimes 'dunking on people', - tweets that nearly all center on smell and her thesis topic of "olfactory ethics" - tweets that she knows keep going viral and getting quote tweeted, all in light of the fact that she's already gone viral off a tweet, so she clearly is aware that's a possibility, especially in the strong opinions she shares, I would think an argument could be made that she does do 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause', especially because she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article. So, it seems to me she is clearly actively seeking a wider audience.

Do I think either of those arguments of being high-profile are an absolute slam dunk? No. But do I think they're potentially reasonable and something a reasonable person could argue? Yes. I also don't think there are any absolutely slam-dunk arguments that she's low-profile, given the information above.

Even within the "sustained" section I see on WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." May not (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation. (And Contributor892z's point about Rachael Gunn still seems valid to me.)

Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). But point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual and I've already argued why I don't think that's true. And point 3 says the event was not significant or the individual's role in the event was not significant. Clearly, Ally Louks' role was significant in the event, as the event revolved around her and her work. And I would argue 'the event,' aka the virality around her thesis, was also significant in that there was TONS of coverage, some fairly in depth, and it has ignited international conversation. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral (from 0 to 100 on google's chart). So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not "high-profile" or "low-profile", people are. And WP:BLP1E already addresses this: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In other words, giving interviews about the single event for which she is notable does not count toward her status as low-profile or high-profile. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, she would be considered more high-profile if - for example - she gave interviews to media outlets about other topics unrelated to her social media post, where she weighed in as a "politics of smell" expert. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astaire and that’s exactly what she is doing here and here (scroll all the way down). And both outlets are reliable sources. Refer to the note about WP:THECONVERSATION (The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts). Contributor892z (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those links involve her explaining her thesis in the context of going viral, and not providing commentary on other events as a subject matter expert, as I said above. Astaire (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC has literally nothing indicating her interview was about anything other than going viral; in fact, it doesn't even have enough secondary independent content to qualify toward GNG. And her article in The Conversation has literally no relevance to notability—giving interviews and writing articles are utterly routine in academia and do not establish someone is high-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether BLP1E is met, the subject still must meet WP:SUSTAINED, which she emphatically does not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a clear cut definition of sustained coverage? Jim Redmond is an extreme case (from the event in 1992 until his death in 2022, coverage for a single event continued). Do we have an example of what is the shortest acceptable coverage length for it to be deemed sustained? Contributor892z (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have noted, her notoriety has surpassed the original incident and therefore does not meet WP:BLP1E criteria. On twitter she is frequently mentioned as the de facto expert on the interaction of smell and media. Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How has her notoriety surpassed the original incident? Every single article is related to it. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on Twitter a lot does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on team keep [I won't bold it since I've already gotten to do that once] for the time being.

I don't mean to overpower this convo at all. I know I'm a bit loquacious and passionate (and if you feel it is a violation to say similar things more concisely in a less buried spot, feel free to delete. I want to follow the rules of civility/wikipedia, but also don't want my arguments to be lost above, or be too hard to navigate through because of me not being concise enough above (my bad).

So for anyone interested in a more concise re-cap of my current arguments for the re-listed discussion):

1) I think Ally Louks isn't a low-profile individual WP:LOWPROFILE under 2 different spots:

A) She's given interviews as a 'notable commentator' (mentioning what her thesis is about and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia while sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.)

B) (even more so this one, I think): Promotional activities. She does do activities in an "attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." Consistently daily tweeting, from the account that went viral in the first place, to over 100,000 followers, with nearly all her tweets expanding on "olfactory ethics" (her topic) in some way does seem like 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause' (of seeing smell in a specific framework and getting more people to think in/engage with that framework), especially as she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article.

2) Within "sustained" in WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation.

3) Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). And I don't think we can say that all 3 of been met. Here are 2 I question:

A) point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual (which I argue against above).

B) Point 3 says the event was not significant. I would argue 'the event' was significant. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral on google trends. So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.)

Additionally, a new addition to this post that wasn't in the one I just recapped: if it matters at all, I found an article published just 2 days ago in which a paragraph about her is the jumping off point: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3272832/eric-hoffer-the-true-believer-trouble-with-academia/ So, she hasn't disappeared from the zeitgeist. (I know that mention in and of itself would not be enough to make her notable, but since people seem to be concerned she's a sort of flash in the pan... here she is being mentioned again (technically the following year after going viral ;) that's a little tongue-in-cheek since we just had New Year's, but I think hopefully the rest of my points stand :)).) Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a violation of WP:BLP1E. Going viral on Twitter and getting coverage because of it does not make a person notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Jennifer Hicks (via WP:PROD on 1 January 2025)
Elena Gutierrez-Farewik (via WP:PROD on 1 January 2025)
Jakub Szefer (via WP:PROD on 1 January 2025)
Andrew B. Raupp (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2024)
Zaman Khan (mycologist) (via WP:PROD on 29 December 2024)
Brenda Dolphin (via WP:PROD on 28 December 2024)
~~Michael E. Levine (via WP:PROD on 26 December 2024)~~
~~Joel M. Podolny (via WP:PROD on 26 December 2024)~~