Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Winners of Regeneron Science Talent Search: WP:NPROF#C2 or WP:BLP1E?

Editor @User01938 has recently created a couple of pages (Matteo Paz and Viviana Risca) for junior past winners of the Regeneron Science Talent Search, both accepted via AfC. There are other, older winners who have pages (e.g. Lisa Randall) that are clearly notable, as well as younger ones such as Evan O'Dorney which are less clear. I have been debating with myself whether the past winners pass WP:NPROF, and since I cannot decide I am posting here for further wisdom. I can think of several interpretations:

1. The award is big enough (currently $250K) to pass #C2.
2. The award by itself is an important indicator, but if there is no additional evidence then they are not notable via WP:BLP1E and WP:Sustained.
3. Even though this is a prize for academic work, this is outside WP:NPROF, similar to prior winners of the Scripps National Spelling Bee.
4. Something else.

N.B., past winners of the Ignobel prize may be a relevant comparison. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Student prizes and awards explicitly do not count towards WP:PROF notability. You will have to look to another notability criterion, presumably WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to add this interpretation. I would like to see a wider concensus on this, so a few more comments please. (I can definitely forsee an argument for #C2 being made in the future.) Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

As David Eppstein says, it would seem that this award does not qualify. NPROF specific notes 2c says:Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. That seems reasonable to me, because it's much less likely that winners' work will have had a significant impact on whatever scientific field it pertains to. So it'll have to be WP:GNG. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

David Epstein is clearly correct. This particular idea (application of the awards criterion to student awards) has been discussed previously and the notes referred to by SunloungerFrog reflect the consensus. The student awards don’t generally connect to what this criterion tries to reflect, which is whether a scholar’s work has had a substantial impact on their field. Qflib (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

To editors David Eppstein, SunloungerFrog and Qflib: thanks, I think this is enough to establish a clear precedent. For more context (that I deliberately left out for NPOV), my opinion is that if there is nothing else the award fails WP:BLP1E/WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NPROF#2c. I can see how an award of $250K could be argued to be much beyond the 2c exclusion, and would not be surprised to see this point raised. Whether the winner of the award falls under WP:BLP1E/WP:SUSTAINED if that is all there is remains for discussion, but not really for this page (probably WT:BIO more than WP:GNG). Ldm1954 (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Provers of a well-known conjecture?

People that prove the Riemann hypothesis or the Collatz conjecture, are they automatically notable? Parid321 (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Only if their proof is accepted and cited by many reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC).

For example if they get the $1000000 does that count? Parid321 (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

While winning the money is an indicator, independent peer recognition is far stronger as already mentioned. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone solving such a conjecture without gaining enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline, or enough peer-recognition to pass WP:ACADEMIC, but it will be because of those that they are notable, not because they solved the conjecture. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

In particular, anyone winning a million dollars for solving a mathematics problem would _surely_ get plenty of coverage for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Rudin Salinger

I've added a red-link for (Malaysia-based academic, brother of Pierre Salinger) Rudin Salinger in my article about his award-winning house (Salinger House) and thought about turning it blue. However, Salinger seems to not have as much coverage as you might have expected. Since he was 75 in 2006 it seems likely that an obituary would have been published by now, or at least some kind of valedictory statement on his retirement, but I wasn't able to find any. Does anyone want to take a look at thim from a NPROF point of view? FOARP (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Soft suggestion for h-index?

Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. is probably accurate. However, I think a quick note regarding "An h-index of Y is indicative of fulfilling Criterion 1" might be useful. Does someone have a good idea regarding the number? Maybe the classic 40? FortunateSons (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that would not be a good idea. An h-index of 40 would be stellar for a philosopher, but nowhere near good enough for a computer scientist. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's unfortunate. And creating discipline-specific guidelines is out of the question? FortunateSons (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't see a way to do that without substantial original research and creation of arbitrary thresholds on our part. The academic world is also slowly moving away from the h-index specifically and arguable citation metrics in general, so us moving from "limited usefulness" to even a 'soft' suggested threshold seems like a step in the wrong direction. – Joe (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

If there was a reliable third-party data source grouping professors by field, I could see us using a per-field threshold defined by the 80th percentile in that field or similar as a rough guide, but to my knowledge no such dataset exists and building it would be practically impossible. I do think h-index is a questionable proxy for the thing we care about here anyway (notability among academics), so we probably shouldn't do that anyway. Suriname0 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I sometimes use it as a shorthand to decide who to add to my "might be notable" list, but aknowledge that this isn't ideal. FortunateSons (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

40 is a bit high. I think most professors pass with 40. I personally use 20 as one of my quick tests. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with 20 in most of the sciences (as mentioned above), that is the level of a typical assistant to junior associate professor at a strong university. I would say that 40 is marginal, particularly if they are one of many on team papers.

A common approach is to compare to peers using both the coauthors and their topics. Also look at whether they are first or last author, and whether they have a decent number of papers with just a few authors and high citation numbers, ideally > 1k. I have a Sandbox notes on my opinion for which suggestions are welcome (on my talk page).

Just saying "she passes/fails with an h-factor of XX" is not useful. However, with context and analysis I argue the numbers are useful. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thanks! FortunateSons (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

A "look at h-index to approximate notability" system could be really useful if we can get it more accurate. Can you or someone else help me make it more accurate? Maybe we can fill in something similar to the below:

• Fields A, B, C - probably notable if h-index greater than X
• Fields D, E, F - probably notable if h-index greater than Y
• Fields G, H, I - probably notable if h-index greater than Z

Of course, the more complicated cases will end up going to AFD where the NPROF experts can do a deep dive and hash things out, but a simple system that a non-professor patroller can use to do basic checks would, in my opinion, be really helpful. I think a lot of NPPs and AFCers get confused by WP:NPROF#C1. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The suggestion made is very reasonable, but very difficult to apply. You cannot directly compare h-indexes for scientists across different scientific fields because the dynamics of publishing and citation practices vary dramatically between disciplines. The h-index is influenced not only by the quality of research but also by field-specific factorsm such as: (1) Publication volume: Some fields (like medicine or life sciences) tend to produce a far higher number of papers per researcher than others (like mathematics or theoretical physics), simply due to differences in research methods, collaboration sizes, and data availability; (2) Citation behavior: Citation rates differ widely. In biomedical sciences, articles often receive many more citations because of larger research communities and faster turnover of literature, while in fields like engineering or social sciences, citation rates are generally lower; (3) Co-authorship norms: In particle physics or genomics, for example, papers often have hundreds of authors, artificially inflating citation counts for all contributors. In contrast, other fields may favor single-author or small-team publications.

These inherent differences mean that a physicist with an h-index of 40 is not necessarily “less impactful” than a medical researcher with an h-index of 60. Comparing their raw h-indices would conflate field effects with individual performance.

This is precisely why tools like the Science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators (by John Ioannidis et a.) were created. These databases normalize citation metrics by accounting for field-specific patterns, career stage, and co-authorship to provide field-adjusted metrics (e.g., a field-weighted citation impact). Such approaches enable more equitable comparisons across disciplines, avoiding unfair bias against researchers in fields with lower publication and citation rates. In sum, raw h-indices are not comparable across disciplines, and field-normalized indicators are essential for fair and meaningful evaluation. So, please read the article, c-score which we created last year. G-Lignum (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement about not using the same h-index threshold for all fields. I'm just asking for someone who knows which fields have a lot of citations and which fields don't to help me put the common fields into buckets, and also estimate what h-index would be the threshold for passing NPROF#C1 on Wikipedia. A rough draft might look something like...

• High citation fields - Fields A, B, C - probably notable if h-index greater than 40
• Medium citation fields - Fields D, E, F - probably notable if h-index greater than 30
• Low citation fields - Fields G, H, I - probably notable if h-index greater than 20

Then we look at what some of the most common fields are, and start plugging those into A, B, C, D, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you will get much support for this. Even within one field different subareas get vastly different citations. Many academics deliberately chase this by going after "hot" topics; some don't. Which group is more notable?

I have an alternate suggestion which might be useful. Some form of script which will pull GS, Scopus, ResearchGate and maybe even database ranks just for review purposes. Doing the same for coauthors and placement within their GS field might also be useful, albeit I suspect harder to code. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the best that can be done is some sort of list with a wide gap between "definitely notable" and "definitely not notable". For example there could be a field for which a researcher with an h-index of 40 is almost certainly notable, but one with an h-index of 10 is almost certainly not notable. Many people would fall in the middle, and other measures need to be used for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You’d have to go higher than 40 in certain fields, like AI, where I understand that 70+ is what’s looked for. Using 10 as a lower limit might not work for the humanities and some of the social sciences. Qflib (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my suggestion would still be by field. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Five-year Rutherford Discovery Fellowship of the Royal Society Te Apārangi

There are quite a few new STEM pages on academics who have recently won this grant. The specific description is "The Rutherford Discovery Fellowships was set up to support the development of future research leaders, and assist with the retention and repatriation of New Zealand's talented early- to mid- career researchers." While this is an important grant, my read is that it is too junior to be an automatic pass for #C2. I want to get a little concensus as some of the recent awardees do not pass WP:NPROF IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn’t automatically pass C2. Also from their site:” The Rutherford Discovery Fellowships was set up to support the development of future research leaders, and assist with the retention and repatriation of New Zealand's talented early- to mid- career researchers.” This might be one indicator of academic notability but it doesn’t stand alone. Qflib (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

"Support the development of future research leaders" suggests that the society does not believe the recipients to yet be notable, but wishes to assist them on the journey to eventually becoming notable. I don't think that receiving this award contributes much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

To me it's suggestive that they are likely to eventually pass PROF, but not passing itself. It appears to be a grant for future research, rather than an award for past performance, and we have never had a criterion for which that fits. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Criterion #3 (notability by award), does this include meta-scientific activities?

This request for discussion is a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fariborz Maseeh. As background, Maseeh has had a stellar business career as an engineer, entrepreneur in engineering businesses, and has become a significant philanthropist and donor to academic organisations, endowing a chair, and funding projects that will create the next generation of engineers. He has education to PhD level, but does not appear to have taught since his PhD, nor to have carried out academic research work since then. He was recognised by election to the NAE, the citation being "For leadership and advances in efficient design, development, and manufacturing of microelectromechanical systems, and empowering engineering talent through public service", and one of the organisations he's greatly helped, Portland Sate University, has praised him as a "venture philanthropist".

My question is this: when someone with a background in science and engineering wins an award from a science/engineering organisation, does the award actually have to be for academic work in the field of science and engineering, if we're to count it towards NPROF#3? Or is it sufficient that the award is in recognition of outstanding positive benefits to academia? And if we make a distinction between these two situations, how do we draw the line? In Maseeh's case, do we think his award was primarily for "leadership" and "empowering engineering talent through public service", which are not academic activities, or "efficient design, development... of microelectromechanical systems" which might well be?

That's the end of my question. To be clear, I'll add my own view: I believe that NPROF should be restricted to academics' activities as an academic, their research and publication. If they are elected to a learned society because of their outstanding research, they are judged by NPROF. If they are honoured for their wider contribution in a field that they reached via a scientific education and by running tech companies, they should be judged by GNG. This is in line with our policy that a person can be notable via NPROF for sitting in a distinguished chair, but not necessarily for endowing the chair. In Maseeh's case I'd be happy to see his article retained with him as a generally notable person, but I think he's moved far enough from pure academia that he no longer needs the (rather generous) prop of NPROF. I am biased towards a science context, but of course this applies equally to any business that grows from an academic root, be it geography, law or economics too.

Pinging Ldm1954 who suggested I raise this here. Elemimele (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Elemimele, thanks for posting this.

My view is different, and I think we should ignore this specific case and discuss the general principle. I know that there is at least one other case of an industry-based NAE who has minimal publications, and there are also FRS. (I cannot remember names, let's leave aside controversial ones.)

While I am biased towards academics, we should not ignore industry/technology. Often their results do not get published, and/or they only publish what fails or years later. However, their contributions are sometimes as or more significant for technology or science. Therefore if reputable peer societies such as NAE/NAS/RS etc decide that industry people with low-citations merit inclusion, we should to. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:PROF, and any of its criteria, should be used to determine notability when the notability results from scholarly distinction. In cases like this, the awards, even if given by scholarly societies, are made in recognition of contributions that are not really about scholarship. As such, instead of looking to Criterion 3, one should judge notability by WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The NAE and other engineering societies tend to have more of a mix of businesspeople than less-applied scholarly societies, for obvious reasons. There is a big gray area here between businesspeople whose recognized contributions are in business leadership and people who have a strong record of research publication but who do so while working in industry rather than academia. I would not want to shut off what is currently one of the main ways of recognizing strong researchers in industry (or for that matter independent researchers) by imposing arbitrary credential-based rules that we can only apply this to professors, but on the other hand I can see the argument that people elected to scholarly societies without scholarly accomplishments shouldn't be considered notable as scholars.

By overall preference would be to keep this criterion as is, without new qualifications. The reasons are that (1) the people who it lets through but are "undeserving" by scholarly accomplishments are probably mostly notable anyway, so it does little harm while new qualifications could do more harm by imposing arbitrary credentialism on our standards, and (2) notability is not really about being deserving, anyway, but about recognition, and this is a high level of recognition regardless. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I can also see Ldm1954's point about recognising industrial scientists. I have great sympathy with people like those chemists who went into industry and were instrumental in developing pharmaceuticals that have changed the world, but who slip under the radar because they weren't publishing (except in the form of patents), they didn't occupy a chair, and modern media mostly doesn't care very much about how ibuprofen/mobile-phone-screens/circle-drawing-algorithms came to exist. This may be one of those situations where GNG needs to be used with some flexibility. How do we feel about patents as a notability criterion? I'd say being on a patent for an idea no one ever used is pretty irrelevant, but if you're named on the patent for aspirin or the transistor, that makes you quite encyclopedia-worthy? Elemimele (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Elemimele, a page that is relevant to your comment above is Magid Abou-Gharbia. Just based upon his h-factor he would be marginal as almost all his papers are large team efforts. What (IMHO) makes him notable is that major scientific societies recognized his contributions to pharmaceuticals. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

On one level, WP:ANYBIO suggests that a stand alone page could be created for anyone who "received a well-known and significant award or honor." This is similar to NPROF#2 and NPROF#3. So, a case could theoretically be made that the award is well-known. That said, as David Eppstein says above, notability is not really about being deserving, anyway, but about recognition. For me, though, the more we lean into NPROF#2 and NPROF#3 and NPROF#4, the more I want to see independent, reliable-sourced coverage of the honor or recognition. --Enos733 (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Significant impact

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

What exactly is meant by "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Read the Specific criteria notes and see if that answers your question sufficiently. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really, because the notes are still vague: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.

What is considered "highly cited"? What is "a substantial number" or "significant citation rates"? I always went by 1000+ citations, but I just want to double chack that that isn't too strict or too lenient. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 13:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

What number constitutes highly cited likely varies by discipline. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C3

That says:

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).

And then then notes below says:

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 for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

For the purposes of Criterion 3, elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient (most newly formed societies fall into that category).

For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source.

Based on this, if someone is listed as a member of the National Academy of Sciences and found under this URL...

• https://www.nasonline.org/membership/member-directory

Does that mean the presumption should their article goes to AfC or AfD they are automatically notable? The reason I ask is because this page (List of members of the National Academy of Sciences, likely out of date) says 2000~ members, but their search says 7000+. It seems like a red link editing waiting to be written bonanza if membership there plus Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C3 is an instant notability pass (assuming the article is written).

Am I interpreting this criteria right? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes.

There are more like 3683 members of Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences but still, there are plenty of members for whom we do not have articles.

I'm not sure what you mean about the bonanza: if it means you were running out of inspiration for your Wikipedia editing and have now found some, then good. If it means mass creation of thousands of substubs saying only that they are a member and sourced only to those directory entries (or worse, longer AI-written slop), then please don't. (We are still cleaning up the problems created by one past editor who did that and mass creation is generally frowned on and likely to get stopped.) If it means that you think there is a problem with the notability criterion, then no, there isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wouldn't make a bunch of crappy tiny things. I noticed that come up in an AfD and I'd never looked that closely at the criteria, then the number discrepency was just eye-popping. I've got plenty to do; it's just neat having a reservoir of science-related red links to scratch at when I'm bored or sick of working on other things. How many did that guy make? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Here are the new article listings for Topcipher and SwisterTwister (maybe around 1500 and 2500), but there were other usernames, I don't remember them all, and they're not all in the SPI. My general impression is that they were generally on people notable by our standards (not only #C3), but were low-quality sub-stubs. Some have been expanded since (often by COI editors) but many have not and are still low-quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Setting aside users who have violated various policies, the basic answer to the question of whether membership in the NAS should be taken as a presumption of notability is yes. Pretty much anyone who attains membership there can be considered notable for our purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Academics New Page Sorting

I think an improvement in how User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting handles academic biographies would be useful to aid reviewing. Some get sorted under STEM, but many are only in the massive Biography list and hard to isolate. Many STEM academics also never make it to the STEM list, and there is no non-STEM academics sorting. I made a request to SD0001 on the talk page, but the response was not enthusiastic. Maybe someone here has a better approach to this, and/or a better sorting page or strategy. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Alexandre Zerbini notability

I have written Draft:Alexandre Zerbini in return for compensation. It has been declined because of him not being notable. Zerbini has a citation count of 8800 with him being the first or the last author on many of the highly cited papers. He has 3900 citations according to Scopus. I understand that notability based on criterion 1 differs from field to field. Zerbini is a marine scientist. For this field, do 8800 citations make him notable? HRShami (talk) HRShami (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I would put him on the border, as he is one-of-many for his highest cited papers, and their citation numbers are not great. One issue is that you describe his research, but do not focus on what would make him notable. A significant weakness is a lack of peer recognition through awards etc. Why did you skip IWC Science Committee? (Use a better source.) Anything else? Ldm1954 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ldm1954, Thank you very much for your detailed feedback. If he is borderline notable, I will leave this aside and come back to it at a later date when he is clearly notable. HRShami (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

What is academic conference notability?

Yes, I know this is not on academics, but we are the people who have an interest in this.

I have seen academic conferences nominated for deletion (PROD/AfD) because the sources are primary, there are few GS papers on them and there is little sigcov. To me there are similarities to NPROF. Only a minority of who we accept as notable academics get articles written about them etc, we instead accept peer recognition via awards and a strong citation history as demonstrations. To me academic "NCONFERENCE" should similarly accept peer attendance in large numbers and citations of conference papers (in some fields critical) as important metrics.

I could not see a discussion on this so I am posting here - slap me with a fish if this is well trodden territory.

Courtesy ping of @LibStar who I have seen do some nominations for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

"peer attendance in large numbers" and what exactly constitutes large numbers? Many conferences get well attended. LibStar (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I deliberately did not specify details here, I wanted to get a community feel for the topic relevance first, and knowledge of whether this is a settled or unsettled issue. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the current status is that conference notability is subject only to WP:GNG. I am personally in favor of notability tests that are more oriented to significance than publicity, and we did recently succeed in getting WP:SPECIES established as a notability guideline, but that was mostly a codification of longstanding practice. Unfortunately, I think there is not much community appetite for moving more notability guidelines away from GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that having a h-index criterion for conferences could potentially work, although much like NPROF we're not going to be able to come up with a specific score other than "high for its field". Conference attendance seems even more nebulous, since conferences vary in format and can attract a fair amount of attendance outside of their immediate field. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think an academic conference would fall under WP:NCORP. - Enos733 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that series of large conferences that are central to a discipline or large subdiscipline are probably notable, or should be. As usual, in cases where they are hosted by a notable organization, the conference might be better covered with a few paragraphs in the article about the organization. Pinging @Randykitty and Headbomb: as experts on academic publishing, they might have opinions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1 - students and hierarchy of authorship

• Should we add something about student co-authorship here? To me, there's a loophole here that allows for students in highly-cited fields (particularly applied sciences like engineering) to inherit notability from their senior authors; particularly graduate students of their advisors.
  • Should there be a criteria that establishes their role in the highly cited paper(s)?
  • Should we defer to student co-authors to WP:GNG unless they are the first author and worked independently of notable senior authors?
  • Should we require WP:SUSTAINED for post-graduates whose WP:NACADEMIC is relying on C1 for paper(s) co-authored while they were a student?
• Should we clarify that C1 would not be applicable to authorship unless they are demonstrably recognized in their field due to that co-authorship? (For an example of why this matters see doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241102.)
  • Should we have a defined dilution of cites based on:
    • Quantity of authors? (e.g., 10 authors on a paper with 500 cites is 50 cites per author)
    • Ordinality of authorship? (e.g., the first author has 10 times the weight of the 10th) Some ordering is alphabetical rather than by contribution.

Revolving Doormat (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what the particular issue is. The paper you cite is a classic team paper with about as many cites as authors. Except for the senior author(s) (assuming that their seniority is verifiable in some other fashion) that paper provides almost zero notability for anyone. What I have seen in AfD discussions (and I agree with) is a requirement that for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) independent notability must be established separate from large team papers. (This is also what comes up for tenure in the US.)

Just because someone is a student is not relevant by itself remember Brian Josephson. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm purposely leaving out the details from where this originated from. I don't think someone like Josephson would somehow be excluded due to what I've stated above.

I will say that you recently were part of a discussion on this matter in which the result was no consensus and the center of the issue was that a graduate student was co-author to three highly-cited works with senior authors (including their notable academic advisors). There was no indication that they should inherit notability from the papers and I've tried to cover the arguments used above. Revolving Doormat (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

These things vary too much from one field to another that they would make any explicit rule regarding how to count them counterproductive. To take just the most obvious point, some fields such as pure mathematics alphabetize authors and expect them to contribute equally, so your rule regarding order of authorship would instead reward some people and penalize others based purely on the spelling of their names. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That's good to know. Something to note is that these were just examples as jumping off points to try to address this topic. I will strike that one since not all authorship is ordinal in terms of contributions. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The proposal of assessing cites per author is a good one but not easy to implement. This information is implicitly available to the owners of citation databases but they do not release it to the public and it can only be obtained by laborious examination. It is a common practice in academic AfDs to give less weight to papers with large numbers of authors. The order of authorship varies so widely that it is not useful for assessing notabilty. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC).

"Common practices" that aren't written down lead to editors having no idea what actually meets this standard. What is a "large number of authors"? Does everyone define that the same way? Or does it only come up when it is obvious? Having some sort of set dilution method could help editors understand what is actually considered notable.

To me, when I see no consensus on an AfD about a person's notability, and the sticking point is one single guideline, the guideline needs to be clarified. Revolving Doormat (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

If you want to know what common practice is then lurk around academic AfD space for a few years. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC).

I don't think editors should have to spend years participating in AfD to do so effectively. I have watched many articles be kept or deleted because only two editors participated in the discussion over the past two months, and it didn't appear that in many cases, it was actually following the policies. Revolving Doormat (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Although individual thresholds may be different, I think there is pretty general agreement among academic AfD regulars. When you see disagreement, it is usually from editors motivated by the starting position that they want to keep the article and trying to interpret the wording of the guideline in whatever way is most favorable to that position. That's going to happen regardless (for instance it happens all the time in GNG-based deletion discussions, where the reinterpretation and disagreement is usually over what it means for sources to be independent, reliable, and having significant coverage of the topic). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I second David's comment. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Third. -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hear, hear!. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I will also agree. I think this proposal falls for the fallacy that more numerical is more "objective", when really it just means that editors argue numbers at each other instead of serving up alphabet soup. Moreover, I am not convinced that the supposed problem it aims to solve actually is a problem, in practice. How often does an article about a student, whose notability hinges entirely upon citations to papers with many coauthors, actually come to AfD? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I should have separated this into two different posts, since everyone seems to have entirely ignored the main points, and instead hinged their entire response on the point about number of authors. The main point here is about whether or not students should inherit notability based on citations alone from their senior contributors as co-authors.

However, I still point out that this sort of non-consensus just happened over an article in which the subject was a graduate student on papers with more than 5 authors (I consider to be a lot) who had done basically nothing more in the subsequent decade. And, nearly all of you participated in the AfD, and did not agree on whether or not the article should be kept—and the keep votes were based solely on the high cite count on three papers with their notable advisors. Revolving Doormat (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy C. Foster? As a non-participant in that, I am reviewing it now, and my overall impression is that a "no consensus" close after three weeks is an example of the system muddling along well enough, more than anything else. Arguments were made, counter-arguments were posed, a consensus did not form to find the counter-arguments persuasive, and the decision defaulted to keeping. The point was also made that Even if we restrict to first-author publications the citation numbers added up to a keep. This suggests to me that your proposed rule would unfairly penalize junior researchers who take on leadership roles on research projects in groups where the boss puts his name on everything. I can think of examples that I probably shouldn't name where it's a grad student or postdoc who comes up with the idea, or who does the real work to develop an idea into a real project, and the celebrity scientist who is director of the whole lab becomes the last author because he's last author on all papers coming out of the lab. The junior collaborators aren't coasting on the celebrity's name; the situation is closer to being the reverse of that. I've even been that junior researcher a few times. Your proposal would seem to devalue the contributions of junior researchers without real evidence that they were freeloading. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I was trying to avoid this discussion being about one particular person, nor was I making a proposal of any particular rule. I was trying to have a discussion over the lack of consensus over C1's application. My opening this discussion has nothing to do with devaluing anyone's contributions, but attempting to clarify a guideline which seems wildly open to interpretation. I wish only to vote in a way that properly reflects the consensus of Wikipedia, which feels more and more intentionally ambiguous the more time I spend in AfD. Revolving Doormat (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I get the impression that you think that being "wildly open to interpretation" makes this rule exceptional and that GNG is not "wildly open to interpretation". If so, you are deluded. I could point to specific ongoing discussions but you are trying to avoid that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the last sentence in that paragraph and a previous statement make clear that I don't think this is unique to this guideline. I simply hoped to resolve this single lack of consensus that recently came up, so perhaps I was a bit deluded to think that was something worth doing. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Resolving an occasional lack of consensus by imposing rigid rules can only be worth doing if the results of those rules are more accurate than the results of our current process. The problem is that citation standards vary so wildly across disciplines that any rigid rule will break, most likely allowing us to have articles only on machine learning researchers and theoretical physicists and not on academics in subjects with lower citation rates and higher coauthorship rates. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Revolving Doormat, upon reviewing your opening statement, my sense is that these are questions that are already resolved on Wikipedia when applying GNG, BIO, and / or C1 criteria. I don't see the need for having special criteria for students. The same applies to them as any other researcher in a given academic field. If we try to add credited number of cites based on a mathematical calculation, then that seems to lower the bar for notability, for which I see no reason to do. Also, as David Eppstein seems to say, it will not effect the need for debates in a given AfD. In my opinion, it is not possible to create bright-line criteria that is always applicable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess really then, my last question about this: Should we require WP:SUSTAINED for post-graduates whose WP:NACADEMIC is relying on C1 while they were a student? - removing the student status. This was LDM's concern in the aforementioned AfD. It had been more than 10 years since the highly cited works with notable authors, and no indication of impact since. Or is this just again open to debate intentionally? Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It is something that is often considered in academic AfDs, among many other considerations, but does not need to be legislated, among those many other considerations. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with David Eppstein. It can be seen as one factor among others, depending on the situation. This is why we have discussions. I am guessing if it were possible to delete articles about academics, other persons or other topics without having to analyze whether or not they merit inclusion, Wikipedia would have done so, a long time ago. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Inserting "WP:SUSTAINED" into the language of this guideline for students specifically would make a weird exception (why apply that to students and not to junior partners in other collaborations) and would invite wiki-lawyering over how long interest in a paper has to continue for it to count as "sustained" (and once it is "sustained", then notability is not temporary). And of course, scientific papers can accumulate citations years and even decades after their publication. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to reiterate I said removing the student status. I suppose I could have just deleted it from the quote to make that more clear. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

But it's still talking about relying on C1 based on work done while they were a student, which is what I was referring to. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to say regardless of whether or not they were a student, because I think LDM's point was junior versus senior authors, and no subsequent activity to show any notability per NACADEMIC. Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

it can only be obtained by laborious examination. I feel seen.
@Revolving Doormat, NPROF AfD regulars are generally pretty good at recognizing the "quirks" in citation practices between subfields—as is enshrined in our guideline: Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. The guideline also has verbiage that, if not explicit, certainly implies that junior academics ought to be approached with the assumption that they are non-NPROF-notable, with AfDs routinely down-weighting papers authored as a student/early postdoc and those with many authors (and where the subject isn't first or senior author). My own method, when dealing with compatible disciplines, is to compare the citation profiles of all/most of the subject's senior-level coauthors to get a sense of the "average professor" for that field. As noted above, this is laborious (Scopus API only extracts ~150 coauthors, beyond that you have to manually go through each paper...) and also only applicable to fields where coauthorship is common but not too common. A long time ago I did (jokingly) propose a quantitative method for weighting citation contribution in ordinal/semi-ordinal high-authorship situations (*cough* HEP *cough*), which was a fun thought exercise but wholly impractical in the real world. JoelleJay (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I was under the impression that a lack of consensus over whether or not someone meets C1 was a sign that it was in need of clarity. It seems that is not the case, but it does make it difficult to know how to vote in a similar situation in the future over the same issue. Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

If we had a mechanical rule that always prevented us from having to think, we wouldn't need the AfD consensus process at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think examining a point where there lacks consensus is looking for a way to eliminate critical thought. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Renaud Joannes-Boyau

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renaud Joannes-Boyau. Looking for input from editors experienced in evaluating the notability of academics. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Kent L. Thornburg

I am requesting comment on whether this person appears to be notable or not per WP:NACADEMIC. This is a paid article created by a PR person at School of Medicine from OHSU School of Medicine. Graywalls (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The page is in pretty bad shape, but a quick look indicates that he has a named full professorship chair, which would be a significant consideration in favor of him passing this guideline. (I haven't bothered to look at his publications.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree: endowed chair at OHSU is a prima facie pass of WP:PROF#C5. I always have difficulty evaluating whether citation counts in medicine are enough for WP:PROF#C1 but these look quite high as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

International National Academies and C3

Is being a member of any National Academy a pass under #C3? A thorny issue, but one which I think needs discussion. For reference, I did not see a discussion in the archives here, and it is a focus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Ndubisi Maduagwu. (I have not taken a position at that AfD, but I will do a ping there.)

The key issue is when do we consider these to be automatic passes. For the USE NAS, NAE and similar in medicine are, and in the UK FRS is (I am not sure about FRSEng.) Probably Chinese Academy of Sciences should be, perhaps some in Europe. Probably not everything in Category:National academies of sciences. Can of worms or can we reach some consensus.

N.B., one way is to remove this so, similar to being a Dean, a clearly notable academic would rely upon having enough other recognition. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Allowing all recognized wide-discipline national academies to count is in part a way of countering systematic bias. The people in the Uganda National Academy of Sciences would not generally meet the standards of the Royal Society but that's not the point; they are recognized at a national level as being the big fish in their small pond. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, otherwise there will be an incredibly high level of bias towards Western (and probably English-speaking) countries. Some national academies may eventually end up being seen as unimportant or untrustworthy for exceptional circumstances, which should be the exception and not the rule. TinyObjects (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I think being selective on which academies are automatic would still result in good geographic diversity given the other seven criteria (and the GNG). There are clearly non-English academies that would add diversity but these are not all the same.

The Accademia nazionale delle scienze in Italy has a total of 40 fellows. The Japan Academy has 150 members . The French Academy has ~300 . Academia Brasileira de Ciências has ~400. This shows some level of selectivity in large countries. In Albania, there are 23 members. Poland limits the number to 350 . In contrast the Mexican academy has over 3000 members, perhaps more marginal on the selectivity axis. The Indian one has ~1000 , large but it is a very populous country. In the small country of Hungary, ~1500 members.

Out of the academies I list above, all of them (except India, perhaps) are from non-English speaking countries). Even if we dubiously assume that all of these national academies are "prestigious", the fact that there are 40 fellows in Italy, 400 in Brazil, and 3000 full members "elected" in Mexico makes it clear that there is a wide variance in selectivity which should be taken into account. 🄻🄰 16:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

To circle back to the original question, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Ndubisi Maduagwu which hinged on whether PROF #3 includes the Nigeria Academy of Science, was closed without a consensus either way. 🄻🄰 19:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

My question also appears to me to be answered as "no concensus", which I think can only be interpreted as case-by-case based upon AfD decisions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I agree with @Russ Woodroofe that a list of them with frequent results would be helpful. We obviously know that some discussed here would be obvious passes while some have no consensus. 🄻🄰 20:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I also agree with Russ, but I do not see a consensus here. (I deliberately did not express an opinion earlier.) Ldm1954 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I started a list of previous results. Maybe we can add some version of this to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)/Precedents?

Scholarly Society	NPROF#3 Pass/Fail/No Consensus
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science	Pass (confirmed)
Fellow of the British Academy	Pass
Fellow of the Chinese Academy of Sciences	Pass
Fellow of the Geological Society of America	Pass
Fellow of the Mexican Academy of Sciences	Pass
Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences	Pass
Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry	Pass
Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers	Pass
Fellow of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics	Pass
Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery	Pass
Fellow of the American Meteorological Society	No Consensus
Fellow of the Nigerian Academy of Science	No Consensus (list deleted as "not notable")
Fellow of the American Society for Metals	Fail
Fellow of the American Heart Association	Fail
Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts	Fail
Fellow of the International Federation of Library Associations	Fail

🄻🄰 22:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, there are some here which are definitely not appropriate, for instance RSC is definitely not exclusive, and I do not consider AAAS as prestigious. I think your table indicates that past AfD's are not a good metric. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The table above is mixing apples and oranges. A look at past AfDs is not needed. Fellow has several different meanings as used by scholarly and professional societies:

1. Professional and scholarly societies that call all members Fellows or that have several membership levels, with a senior level called Fellow. Members apply for this membership themselves and often pay more dues. European scholarly societies and American medical societies are often of this form. An example of this is the Royal Astronomical Society.
2. Professional and scholarly societies that have an honorary level called Fellow that is awarded to only a small percentage of members who have made notable contributions. They do not pay higher dues. Many American societies have such Fellows. An example of this is the American Physical Society.
3. Societies such as national academies where all members are chosen by some criteria of notability and all the members are called Fellows. An example of this is the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

WP:NPROF takes this difference in meaning into account in Criteria #3 and only Fellows of type 2 and 3 qualify. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know nearly enough about these organizations to be anywhere near comfortable saying that I think that all of their members should be presumed notable. So unless and until someone can present convincing evidence that every one of these organizations (or at least the vast majority) merit this consideration then I firmly recommend not assuming notability. ElKevbo (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Presumably Ldm1954 means "FREng" above - Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. Apparently they elect c. 60 a year, and list 1700+ in total (most seem to be professors) - very comparable to the Royal Society which probably means most are notable, though I bet far fewer actually have articles. But some fellowships have huge numbers, over 20k etc, which rules them out for presumed notability imo. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I did mean FREng, typo. I also meant only national academies, not fellowships which would be a more complex topic. N.B., who did you agree with, @ElKevbo? Ldm1954 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with anyone who believes that each organization needs to be examined separately and individually. ElKevbo (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Trying to mediate a middle way between previous comments: I'd suggest that the top-level academy of science should be presumed to suffice, but that lower-level organizations might not. So, Uganda National Academy should be presumed to suffice, but the less-selective Royal Societies in the UK do not, and these should be examined individually. (I think that I am describing more or less how we have been operating.) As always, depends on specific selectivity, and if a specific national society admits all full professors, then we should set aside our presumption and disregard. A list of some frequently-considered societies would be helpful, although might also be too difficult to maintain. (I am not volunteering!) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The guideline is self-explanatory and specifies that they must be "selective" and "prestigious". As a global encyclopedia, there should be a reason we view the specific national academy as "prestigious" as opposed to other academies internationally. If the guideline is meant to include all national academies, it would not have specified selective and prestigious. 🄻🄰 16:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The fellows of the Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran are chosen by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, not based on an academic criteria. I imagine a similar process is in play in China, Russia, and other dictatorships. They should not get an automatic pass. jwtmsqeh (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

While there may be some political biases in China and Russia, in both cases their national academies are very well established, so I definitely would consider Chinese Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences as prestigious. (This is partially based upon people I know or know of of who are academicians.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, our article on the Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran says (if I am reading it correctly) that the initial class of fellows was selected, and that they thereafter were elected by the existing members. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I see that it states without citation that they are selected by secret ballot but doesn't state by who... In any case, as a government body it would be under the thumb of the political leaders and the IRGC terrorist organization. By this logic, we may as well declare Taliban and Al Qaeda officials as notable scientists. jwtmsqeh (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The Taliban argument is a straw man. There is plenty of solid mathematics (at least) coming out of Iran. I am not certain as to how to hold the national academy, but at least some of the members look like serious people. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a straw man, both are terror regimes running countries.

Is your position that should the Academy of Sciences of Afghanistan be relaunched under the Taliban, it should be given automatic deference?

I have no doubt that Iran has excellent scientists. I doubt the wisdom of deferring to a terrorist regime that represses the Iranian people, including scientists, to identify them. jwtmsqeh (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I see now that the Taliban has seemingly reformed an Afghan Academy of Sciences which hosted Ummah Scholars and is making efforts to promote "Islamic and national knowledge in alignment with the strategies of the Islamic Emirate". Should it be given deference as a top-level national academy of science? jwtmsqeh (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Wording of C6

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Zaber Hossain raises a question of wording: C6 asks for a "significant accredited college or university" but this seems to me to be worded in unnecessarily US-centric language. The intended meaning here is of a degree-granting postsecondary institution, many varieties of English use "college" to mean a high school, gymnasium, or equivalent, and even within the US a college can be a standalone university, an academic subdivision of a university, a residential subdivision of the students at a university, or something else. Additionally, accreditation appears to vary significantly by country; according to higher education accreditation, Canada does not have it at all, and some countries accredit degree programs rather than universities. Can we reword this in a more unambiguous and WP:COMMONALITY-respecting way? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

By "reword", do you mean to delete "college or"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, that might work. But we do want Dartmouth College to count, at least... —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

and the College of William & Mary. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC).

No, I wasn't suggesting that, and would oppose doing it if someone else proposed it. I'm just trying to pin down what kind of wording change you are proposing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't have anything specific in mind. I was hoping maybe we could brainstorm suggestions here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe something like "a significant, reputable university or other institution of higher education"? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

"Significant" and "reputable" may be too subjective. I lean toward "reputable (e.g., accredited)" as a potential replacement for "reputable." I'm not sure if there is anything to replace "significant" unless we want to wade into national and international rankings or other measures - and I'm sure that we don't (I don't!) - so we may be stuck with it if we think it can be workable. ElKevbo (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Since the issue is, as I understand it, the word "college" (but not "university"), maybe something along the lines of "significant accredited university, or a college that is accredited similarly to such a university". I feel like that's too verbose, but maybe someone can work off of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the exact objection and what change is being requested. But if it has to with "college or university" then a common substitution is simply "postsecondary institution." I'm not a comparative education scholar but I think that phrase is widely used around the world although it may not be as familiar in some countries by the general public. ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:Prof is aimed at the community of scholarship and research i.e. those who contribute to the creation of new knowledge. The criterion should read "postsecondary institution with a widely recognized presence in the area of scholarship and research." Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC).

I like Xxanthippe's suggested language. Maybe start it with "university or other postsecondary....". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Something like that sounds good to me too. There are too many university-like things with other kinds of names (institutes, grandes écoles, etc) to try to name them all and "university or other postsecondary institution" seems to cover the bases thoroughly enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 for Xxanthippe's language or similar. I want to also point out that the situation with C8 is somewhat similar -- there we say "editor of a major, well-established academic journal". It might be worth keeping in mind trying to keep these somewhat parallel. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

So maybe replace "recognized presence" with "well-established presence" to parallelise C8 more and thus signpost that we intend a similar level? Also is there merit in somehow qualifying what "well-established presence in the area of scholarship and research" might mean in practice? For example, a teaching university that does not have a Ph.D. program is unlikely to meet the criteria. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The phrasing "university or other postsecondary institution with a widely recognized presence in the area of scholarship and research" sounds good to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

We do need to be clear that the "widely recognized etc" part modifies both "university" and "other postsecondary institution". And I don't think "the area of" is doing much here. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, how about something like:

1. "a university (or similar postsecondary institution) that is widely recognized for scholarship and research"
2. "a university (or similar postsecondary institution) with a well-established research programme"

I personally like the idea of using "well-established" to parallel C8, hence #2, though the phrasing is not quite right and #1 is better at the moment. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I prefer 1, but 2 would be acceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

... "well-established record of scholarship and research", maybe? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Also ok with me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Great. I like that. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The best suggestion I've heard yet. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I like it too (and what a fine example of collaborative brainstorming this has been). I'm going to make an extremely minor nitpick. Having a "well-established record of scholarship and research" might be construed as not requiring excellence, just having been in existence. I slightly prefer "widely recognized record", because that implies the need for sources that establish the recognition, not just the existence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

... "well-established record of excellence in scholarship and research", to address that? Or combine to ... "well-established record of recognition in scholarship and research" Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid wordiness, so it might be best to just choose between "well-established record" or "widely recognized record" in the earlier version. I appreciate that some editors want a parallel with C8, but for me the emphasis on recognition is of greater utility. That said, I also like using the word "excellence". So maybe "that is widely recognized for excellence in scholarship and research"? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

"Widely recognized" sounds like it would be easier to argue over; it seems to call for a broader variety of sources than "well established" does. The former seems to be asking for a status like Oxford or MIT, where the recognition is so wide that it becomes a cultural shorthand (the kind of recognition that made for "in popular culture" sub-articles in bygone ages). But maybe I'm reading too much into the word choice there. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps "reputation" in place of "record" would emphasize the recognition in a way that you like? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I don't want to overthink this, and I don't want my preference to derail what sounds like a good consensus. I think we should go with "a university (or similar postsecondary institution) with a well-established record of scholarship and research". No need to complicate it further, and it works just fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

C6 & collegiate universities

I was reviewing at AfC a draft on the president of a Cambridge college, and it occurred to me I don't know whether such a person is automatically notable per NACADEMIC #6, or would need to satisfy GNG.

Criterion #6 refers to "major academic institution". In the case of collegiate universities, does this include the individual constituent colleges, eg. Oxbridge ones like Balliol College or, in this specific case, Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge?

I've only found this Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_2#Heads_of_Oxbridge_colleges in the archives, but it's a) from almost 20 years ago, and b) not entirely conclusive.

On a related but somewhat separate point, it seems to me more obvious that federal universities' constituent parts (like University College London or UCSD) would be within the scope of C6, but if I got that wrong please correct me.

Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I will vote that we should not give them an automatic pass. However, I would be shocked if they did not fly through WP:NPROF or WP:GNG from their other achievements, to be elected as the president is major. That said, Draft:Girish Menon does not show a pass of WP:NPROF, or even WP:GNG. We have a strange situation with notability that (IMHO) major not-for-profit executives can have issues with WP:SIGCOV, since the one thing they do not do is self-promotion, because the charities they run are the focus.

N.B., I would vote him a pass of notability via WP:IAR. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)