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

Abhishek Kumar Srivastava

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

I don't see the person passes WP:NPROF as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No third party news organisation has reported specifically on him. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very obvious case. While he has made a good start to his career, it is rare for associate Profs to meet WP:NPROF. Adequate but not notable publication record, no major awards, no major converage. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for author AK-Srivastava and keyword corona finds citations that look headed to a successful academic career but are not at the level required for WP:PROF#C1 yet. No other notability criterion is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. Brent Morris

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. No clear notability. Longhornsg (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Organizations, Mathematics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for work on Freemasonry and mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. I found 11 published reviews of 4 books (one mathematics, three Freemasonry). That would ordinarily be enough for a full keep from me, except that three of the books are edited rather than authored and that doesn't count for as much. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Add later: I also found one more review of an authored work but in a Freemasonry journal (nine of the other reviews are in mainstream publications). Perhaps that counts less? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bent Flyvbjerg

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

GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability. Also note that this person is the subject of an extensive promotional campaign of citespam and other articles (see Making Social Science Matter on his book). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sonderbro/Archive for more info on the socks, including the creator of the biographical article. - MrOllie (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this article needs significant alteration and removal of unreliable sources in places, the subject is the Villum Kann Rasmussen Professor, a named professorship, at IT University of Copenhagen. This seems to me to meet C5 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient to establish notability. Again, the article needs substantial editing but the subject appears to be notable. Qflib (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Economics, Geography, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete The article should not be removed as the citations are available. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) — Wikicontriiiiibute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep WP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is horribly promotional and I agree with the citespam comment. He probably does pass WP:NAUTHOR on a second look, but WP:TNT should apply. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyer T·C 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations (80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lockley

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not seem to pass GNG or even SNG. His work may be notable, he is not. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the deletion proposal has been compromised by it trending on Twitter/X, as I found out about the proposed deletion of this page through my Twitter/X feed.

Example: https://x.com/GiveMeBanHammer/status/1814652541755662480 Obversa (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually should have CSD'd as its been deleted before. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion seems to have happened 6 years ago, back when his Yasuke book was yet to reach the other side of the pond. He and his work have since become much more notable since then, for better or worse. It's better we keep this page for that reason alone. --Jnglmpera (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion proposal also appears to have been compromised by it trending on Twitter/X: https://x.com/GiveMeBanHammer/status/1814652541755662480. Due to this, I also think it is better to keep the page for now due to possible interference by non-Wikipedians for or against the deletion of the page. Obversa (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If outsiders notice it, it's fine, and not really a reason in and of itself for one course of action or another. Most people here are names I recognize. SWinxy (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage and reviews of African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke including in the Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Library Journal, Booklist, and a large number of other places. Author meets the notability guidelines at WP:Author.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that I think this policy is REALLY wrong-headed or at least used in ways not intended. The wording for 1-4 are vague and utterly subjective, and you can make a case for literally every author ever since almost every book gets a review somewhere at some point, and the definition of a PhD is to create new knowledge, and academics write on subject matter. It amounts to saying the person is an academic. It's a carte blanche to make thousands of Wikipedia pages on nobodies who no one has ever heard about. There absolutely has to be SOME requirement that SOME news source SOMEWHERE covered the actual person and not just some review of the book. Like it or not, Tia Tequila is more notable than 99.9% of humanity. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is actually 100% on point. The notability of creative people like artists and writers is determined by what they create. Many creative people also avoid publicity and the limelight, which is one of the reasons why this policy was developed. As for reviews, the gold standard are reviews from notable media sources like Publishers Weekly. As a result, we don't just accept any random review out there. SouthernNights (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy as written seems to be meant for a very, very, small niche of elite people, whereas it's more or less used that any author and academic deserves a Wikipedia page. In fact I'm hard pressed to see how ANY author or PhD would fail this test. If someone gets a PhD or writes a book on a subject, they're defacto an expert, and if they publish any work it's gonna get reviews. So we end up with thousands upon thousands of perma-stub wikipedia pages on utter nobodies. So somehow it doesn't matter that there's literally never been a SINGLE article anywhere on this person or a complete dearth of biographical information other than a 1-2 sentence bio from the publisher.

"Many creative people also avoid publicity and the limelight" ie 100 non-notable. And that notability isn't derived from their works, so if a book gets reviews it's the BOOK that should get a page, not the author! The advocates of this policy seem to cite morality, that it's a moral good to have pages on "important" figures like academics and scientists because otherwise the site would be filled with biographies on celebrities. And there's some projects that seem to make it their lifes mission to make these kind of pages to right some historical wrong. But that is just how notability works. Tia Tequila is more notable than most of humanity, and that is fine. These academics should be seen as SOURCES not subjects for Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think having a single well reviewed book is enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. By this standard almost any academic who has published a book (which tend to be frequently reviewed in academic journals) would be notable. His citation record is quite weak [1] Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on keep due to now increased notability as mentioned here and by Silver seren. SmallMender (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:Author as explained by SouthernNights. His work is notable, and his authorship of one of his works has been widely recognized - this is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting this article is much less intellectually honest and useful than documenting how (Redacted). Wikipedia is ought to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is ought to tell the truth. 122.213.236.124 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/refocus article on book. Google scholar profile shows citations are nowhere near enough to pass WP:PROF [2]. A single book is not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, though the book clearly passes WP:NBOOK. I would recommend this article be reworked to focus primary on the book, similar to the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Shrier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, there's a major difference between a book that received just a few reviews and one that received a ton internationally. Which is why WP:AUTHOR doesn't refer to multiple books being the sole requirement of #3, but that a well-known work singular can be enough. Anyways, here I go.

And that's just from a Google search and ProQuest (and the main WPL one, which I didn't expect to find anything at all, surprised about the Geographical result), without even trying any variant searches or anything to tease out deeper stuff. Silver seren^C 07:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you know, the second book and stuff I pointed out just below. Silver seren^C 07:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lockley has a second book that came out as of two months ago, A Gentleman from Japan, and though it is still rather new, there's still a fair number of reviews out, even in that short time period. Interestingly, there's also an older article from several years back covering his research on this newly released book. As for him personally, there's plenty of articles related to his first book release that include biographical details about him, such as this article from the Mainichi Shimbun. So I fail to see how he doesn't meet the requirements of both the WP:GNG and, if it matters, WP:AUTHOR. Heck, per #3, I would say his first book more than blows out of the water the "significant or well-known work" requirement, as the amount of reviews of the book across international media are really too many to count. The list would be incredibly long. Silver seren^C 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The many reviews of both Yasuke and A Gentleman linked above by Silver seren meet my usual standard for WP:AUTHOR: multiple published reviews each of multiple books. There appears to be a lot of race-related drama over this subject on the net, in Japanese media [3] [4], and at WP:ANI, on which I have no informed opinion, but that should not compromise our standards for notability. To the contrary, if any of that can be backed by reliable sources it would only increase notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person in question is currently the focus of the current Assassin's Creed Shadow's controversy with relevant discussions bombarded with near-live updates from sketchy twitter sources about the author to discredit him. There have been reports exclusive to unreliable sources and twitter that he has been either fired or is under investigation by Nihon University - but he is still listed on Nihon's website and this week was part of an editorial comission for Britannica's page on Yasuke. I do not wish to derail this into a wallpost of whether Lockley is a reliable source or not (there is already an RSN for that), but rather to show that the subject of the article is currently undergoing a media frenzy where a lot of claims made are fabricated or unverified, relevant wiki discussions are being flooded with SPA's that violate BLP at this person, and to ultimately suggest that Lockley's page should follow a 'wait-and-see' approach until (at the earliest) the ANI has concluded, sanctions on the topic are imposed, or it gets raised to Arbcom as has been suggested as a possibility. Relm (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The off-site links posted above show a lot of interest in this page and the Yasuke page, for whatever reasons. I worry that this off-site interest will just cause headaches. I say keep it as is, until all of this current popularity is gone. Then reassess if needed, which I'm not sure of; based on other comments about the authors upcoming works and general notability. Hooples (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Cusi Martinez

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

Academic who appears to be a research scientist, with not many publications, no wider coverage and no major awards. Notability was tagged by a different editor in May, nothing has been done. Hence time for an AfD as he seems to be far short of WP:NPROF Ldm1954 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any criterion of WP:NPROF. Way too early in this scientist's career to establish notability through NPROF. Qflib (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree this ECR does not meet WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taxonomy is a low-citation field, and his citation counts look ok for that field, but not enough to convince me of notability through WP:PROF#C1, and there is nothing else. We have secondary sourcing for some of his research, but its independence is dubious, the research for which we have such sourcing is not the research led by him, and the sources merely name-drop him rather than giving much hint of his role in the research. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Csokán

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

I couldn't find sources to add proving he meets WP:PROF / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to be virtually unknown to chemists outside Hungary. Google Scholar lists six publications, five in Hungarian and one in German, with a total of four citations. The Hungarian version of the article says that "More than 200 scientific articles and 17 books, university notes and book excerpts have been published," (from Google Translate), so maybe Google Scholar has it wrong. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think Google Scholar has it wrong. My searches aren't showing any support for any criterion of WP:NPROF being met. Qflib (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We're talking about a scholar who likely retired decades before the WWW existed and published primarily in Hungarian – Google Scholar is definitely wrong. – Joe (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar is definitely wrong, but the whole thing is unsourced, so we should delete this unless we can verify it. Since it was created 13 years ago by a user named Csokan, I don't think we're likely to be able to do that. If anyone finds sources, feel free to ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no sources we cannot have an article. I was hoping the Hungarian version might be better but it also has no sources. It appears (through automatic translation) to be calling him the winner of what might be a notable award, hu:Akadémiai Aranyérem, but the list of winners at that article and the list of winners at the Hungarian Academy [5] do not include his name. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Flint

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Many of the citations are primary as her employer is The Observer (Gladstone). Not seeing indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. Also an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although being an orphan isn't a reason for deletion, there's not enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, and none of the WP:AUTHOR criteria apply. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In a Newsbank database search (deeper and wider than Google) I found many articles by her but few about her, insufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO,WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF (in her capacity as a Gladstone regional historian). She seems to be a WP:RTM Gladstone regional journalist. Cabrils (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Kade Ferris

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kade Ferris

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

I believe this article should be deleted because it clearly fails WP:NOTE. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources are a bit thin but I wouldn't say it's 'clear' either way. Did you look for sources? The article lists several books authored by the subject, did you look for reviews per WP:NAUTHOR? – Joe (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can't find anything to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I still stand by deleting this article. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope this article fails notability guidelines for authors too. It seems this page was made by friends of the article's subject. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it was made by friends of the subject? Belbury (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His books appear to be self-published but that would be ok if there were reliably published reviews of them. I couldn't find any. The sources in the article now include a book review, but of someone else's book and mentioning Ferris only in passing. The only in-depth source that we have is a local-news obituary, appearing to be a family-written obituary rather than a work of independent journalism. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Kade Ferris is the author. Charles Albert Bender = Chief Bender and is the subject of the biography. There are other reviews of that book too. Anyway I'm leaning keep. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chief Bender meets notability guidelines for his sports career while Ferris does not meet any Wikipedia notability guidelines. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that the book Métis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, with the author listed as Michel Hogue on the cover, is really by Kade Ferris? Because that is the book whose review I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Right. I clocked that the first time I read your comment, but the second time I read it, I read it the other way. I can add the other book reviews (of his book) and also quote from at least one other book I found. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article still seems to fail WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Minnesota, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the review in American Indian Children's Literature got removed from the article as a source. I am adding it back. While the site itself could be construed as a blog, the reason this particular blog qualifies as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS, is that it is produced by Debbie Reese, who is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded it to include more about the impact of his tribal history preservation work and the impact that has on reservations, ND and MN educational standards and added information about his mapping skills. oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how this article ceases to fail WP:NOTE WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His written work as an author and oral traditions that he embedded within his maps, blogs, and recorded videos for the state of North Dakota established notability. He was a respected tribal historian and elder knowledge keeper and professional work reflects that. oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been puffed up with some 30 footnotes, most of which do not seem to be the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Of the ones that actually mention Ferris or his works in their title, "Kade Ferris's Gift" is an interview (not usually counted as independent), the Red Lake Nation News obituary reads like a family-written obituary (not independent), the Mendoza book review is in a blog (not reliably published), Teachings of Our Elders is by him not about him, and Archaeologist presents has no depth of coverage of Ferris. Perhaps, per WP:THREE, advocates of keeping the article could save us the effort of similarly evaluating all 30 of the footnotes and point us to three sources that are actually in-depth, independent, and reliably-published? I'm looking for a small number of high-quality sources, at most three, not many low-quality sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be helpful to hear the three best sources. It seems like notability is marginal at best and it's hard to see through all the passing coverage. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe, thanks for asking. I'd say that these sources are strong: 1) Obit from the Indigenous news press, BobaaMaajimowinan (Telling of the News in Different Places) Red Lake Nation News [6]; 2) Obit in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Minnesota History (can be read on JSTOR via WP:LIB) [7]; 3) The Extra, a newspaper covering Red River Valley, eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota areas, on Ferris' book on Charles Bender [8]; 4) The Indigenous radio program, Minnesota Native News on Ferris' contributions to children's literature [9]; 5) Voice of America [10]; 6) Book review in American Indians in Children's Literature (which unfortunately is published thru blogspot, so it may not count since it's a blog) [11]; among others....please have a look at the improved article along with the current sourcing when you find a moment (sorry I don't have the time right now to list more). However there is less coverage but still solidly sourced: 3-minute PBS (Arizona) discussion with Ferris re: Indigenous reconciliation and cultural healing. The book review on Hogue's book on the Métis includes a quote Ferris as an expert on Métis culture. Some of the other sources are primary sources, such as press releases, or Indigenous human rights and environmental justice publications where he is called up on as an expert, for example this [12] from the Minnesota government's website. To my way of thinking he is clearly notable, and especially so in Indigenous Native American communities as an important leader and thinker, which is just as important as "mainstream American" culture. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article was already extremely well cited, but I added an infobox and a little bit more. His notability stems from his tribal historic preservation work which is interdisciplinary (history, anthropology, archaeology, policy making, language advocacy, etc.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the discussion above about lack of high-quality sourcing, rather than merely asserting that "This article was already extremely well cited" when clearly it isn't? It has many sources but that misses the point. We need a small number of high-quality sources, and continuing to add larger numbers of low-quality sources only makes notability harder to discern by hiding the good sources in a big pile of dross. It would be better to remove both the low-quality sources and the material sourced to them so that we can focus on the essentials. The sources you added (his own dissertation and a web page about someone else that mentions him in passing) do not contribute to notability according to Wikipedia's standards for notability, which are not based on the work the subject might have done but rather on the depth of coverage of the subject in sources that are independent of him and meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the suggestion that tribal newspapers are "low-quality sources." Like I wrote, his notability is based on being a THPO, so it's interdisciplinary. He was not just a writer. While several pieces (Red Lake Nation News, Minnesota Native News) focus on him specifically, even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal newspapers are as reliable as any other newspaper. But when a local newspaper (tribal or not) runs an obituary that reads like the sort of obituary written by a family member to announce a death, rather than the kind of obituary that major newspapers write themselves when famous people die, it doesn't count much towards notability. For one thing, if it is indeed written by family, it is not an independent source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.... even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So much a part of the enduring historical record that the only Wikilink to him from any other article is a an unsourced sentence about him in an article about a village in Lebanon, stating that he is also of Lebanese descent, something that appears nowhere in the Kade Ferris article itself? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an issue to you, you can help expand topics on Turtle Mountain, the Ojibwe or Metis history and credit/wikilink his article from those edits. Wikipedia needs more editors in that area. oncamera _{(talk page)} 10:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the Métis have an interesting history that deserves to be better-known, but I have no special expertise in that area, and I have even less knowledge of Turtle Mountain or the Ojibwe.

Incidentally, I can find no evidence that Kade Ferris had any connection to Lebanon, outside of a few unreliable web sources. I have removed the link to him from the Lebanese village article. His mother was from Minnesota and his father was originally from the Turtle Mountain Reservation. I suspect his father, Albert Ferris, may have some notability as an artist. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just came across this AfD and don't entirely feel experienced enough with guidelines to vote either way, but I'd like to note that Ferris' work on map decolonization and geographic technologies (as THPO for the Red Lake Nation) was significant enough that he gave a full-fledged presentation at the Council for Minnesota Archaeology's 2023 annual conference, entitled "Creating a Virtual Database for Regional Tribal Resource Management and Consultation". I don't know if, for example, a program (with an abstract of his talk) from the conference (the most important one on Minnesota archaeology, as far as I know) would count towards GNG, but I do have such a document if uploading it somewhere could prove useful. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that giving a lecture or presentation at a conference is a stand-out event. Doing that is an ordinary part of an academic's job. The only exceptions would be instances where being selected to give the lecture is itself a high honor, like when a national academic society invites someone to do the Annual So-and-so Memorial Lecture. That can be an indication that the field regards the person's work as particularly important. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the question of notability per cited sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck the article. It's completely fine now. Yuchitown (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False. There are still zero WP:GNG-contributing sources: sources that provide in-depth content about Ferris, are written independently of their subjects, and are reliably published. None of the previous keep comments have even attempted to address those requirements of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kade Ferris was a distinguished archaeologist, anthropologist and historian, one of the first Indigenous archaeologists in the U.S. I've made some improvements, including adding a book review and an obit in an academic journal. He clearly meets criterion #2 of WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC and also nows meet GNG. As an aside, I find it really quite odd that the nominator would assume that It seems this page was made by friends of the article's subject especially given the fact that such a new editor, with only 40 total edits (the majority of which were to the article or this AfD) would make such a comment. I guess I'm also a little curious how they learned by their 20th edit how to produce an AfD so quickly. Nominator, do you yourself have a connection to the subject of the article and why would you make such a statement? Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding "Strong" in front of your !vote, or casting aspersions at the nom, will not give your view more weight. Highlighting sources that provide WP:SIGCOV will.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in a history journal and status as one of the first indigenous archaeologists are compelling. Good articles like this go a long way toward correcting long-standing biases on Wikipedia. 172.9.46.64 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What biases are you referring to? Are you implying that this is bias instead of this figure not meeting notability guidelines? Do you have any evidence of bias or is this a baseless accusation? This article was not nominated for deletion in bad faith. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been discussions on here and elsewhere in response to a scholarly paper written about the bias against topics about Indigenous people and history. Wikipedia Signpost. And Netherzone did bring up questions about how this account with limited edits would know how to nominate for deletion which was not addressed by the OP. oncamera _{(talk page)} 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is one "delete" vote and three "keep" votes plus one "leaning keep." The article has been vastly improved since nomination. This conversation has dragged on for more than two weeks now. Yuchitown (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never interacted with, knew, or worked for Ferris, but for a brief period I watched some of his work from afar. The history journal obit that IP 172.9.46.64 linked to is in my opinion good evidence of what I anecdotally have observed, which is that Ferris did some groundbreaking work that was recognized by his archaeologist and historian peers. Unfortunately for his Wikipedia article, Ferris also worked in an often-overlooked discipline (tribal historic preservation) that doesn't frequently make it into the kind of secondary sources that Wikipedia values for notability purposes. I think a good chunk of that is due to broader systemic biases, absolutely, but I suppose that's not what we're discussing here. Wikipedia's notability standards are likely different from what we as individuals may think makes a person notable. Even so, I think the journal Minnesota History writing "Kade was one of the first THPOs and native archaeologists in the country [....] His dedication to the work in the fields of history, archaeology, and tribal preservation led to his assistance in the development of many THPOs across the region" demonstrates notability by Wikipedia's standards. I can absolutely see how others may disagree, however. SunTunnels (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The article has clearly been improved since it was nominated and I'm suprised it hasn't been closed yet. I can't really fathom any reason to delete it now that it has a massive number of sources and clearly meets GNG.

PersusjCP (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

~~Michael Franz (via WP:PROD on 20 July 2024)~~
William Kaplan (via WP:PROD on 19 July 2024)
Marco Milanese (via WP:BLP-PROD on 18 July 2024)
~~Robert C. Koons (via WP:PROD on 17 July 2024)~~