Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuiljeit Uppaal


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Kuiljeit Uppaal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have the gravest reservations about this article. The subject is very much convinced that she is an "inspirational polymath" and "First Image Scientist in the World!".

The major cites in the article are what seem to me to be an entry in a dubious/nn book of records, for being the "First Image Scientist in the World!", and a dubious "GENIUS POLYMATH OF THE YEAR" from her local Genius Society; and then a fluffy press article about her polymathic genius predicated on one or other of the above. No very good ghits. Wikipedia co-opted for PR. Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I see this is a recreation of a page already deleted as unambiguous promotion. That’s what it still is. Mccapra (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. An egregiously promotional article about a non-notable academic. I have no idea what an "image scientist" is but it sounds like a vague marketing term rather than a formal discipline. There's absolutely no evidence of anything that would pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a rather frustrating article for me. I edited it heavily to remove the fluff and promotional tone then published it from AfC but the original editor keeps coming back to it and putting the fluff and promotional tone back into it. I think she is notable enough for WP but if it can't be maintained as an objective article then it can't be kept. MurielMary (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by what you see in the article, MM. I've seen you turn down plenty of AfCs that seem more obviously notable than this article. We have three really dubious sources here, and then a single source (repeated) confirming her connection with the Women’s Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Researchgate points to 4 publications. Neither GNG nor NACADEMIC appear to be met. What are we missing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this article because this woman was the first person in the world to ever become an image scientist, an area I am building an expertise in. I also want to create an article for image science as well, hence the reason to have an article for this woman. I did see that there are certain users vandalising the page and turning it into something promotional, which was never my intention. But I just ask the community to have some sort of clemency as this article is very important and is the first of many I want to create related to this subject. Since the page is being vandalised, shouldn't this be the case to either protect it or block the users vandalising it? I really do not wish to see this page getting deleted again. It was already so hard reaching the current stage. Thank you! Bad Boy97 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What is image science, Bad Boy97, and in what sense is she the first image scientist? Who, apart from her and her Genius Society / Book of Records people, confirms that she is the first image scientist? Forgive me for saying so, but the claim sounds like absolute, utter and complete nonsense. We have no DoB, but from the photo she is perhaps 40 or younger. We check out Imaging science and find, for instance, Joseph P. Hornak, Encyclopedia of Imaging Science and Technology (John Wiley & Sons, 2002) - i.e. published when she was 22 or thereabouts. It's easy to find academic papers on image analysis going back 30 and more years . --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I wondered about the ‘image science’ bit too, before realising she’s not claiming to have invented tomography, but to have invented a ‘science’ of the personal image, i.e. how one dresses/presents oneself and manages one’s online presence, psychometrics, all of which she has bundled into an entity she’s called ‘image science.’ Once that was clear it was evident that all the claims and sources in the article are promotional. I’ve looked at the ‘clean’ version accepted by MurielMary and while it’s less obviously promotional the claims to genuine notability are still thin - a doctorate from a pretty scary-looking university (btw if she genuinely invented ‘image science’ how can she have a doctorate in it? Who supervised her?) co-authoring a book, receiving a non-notable award and chairing a committee for the WICCI. I agree with Tagishsimon that this article is an attempt to co-opt Wikipedia for PR. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not pass any of the criteria for a notable academic WP:NACADEMIC. Google scholar shows that her papers have been cited only 15 times since 2015 . Does not pass WP:GNG either. Agree the article seems promotional. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unambiguously promotional, plausible WP:CSD speedy. No valid claim to academic notability. Her claims to have invented the academic study of image management also do not hold water, as this topic has been studied at least since the 1970s. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, speedily if G11 applies. It's a promotional bio-blurb, with no evidence that WP:PROF or any other standard is passed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. I did wonder if could pass anything under WP:AUTHOR as books are mentioned, but for for instance https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811033186 I'm not convinced of the level of her involvement. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim to passing WP:NPROF or WP:GNG, sources are pure PR. Her most highly cited paper has 3 citations. Spicy (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - badly claims and fails NPROF. "I'm a polymath" is not a reason to be on Wikipedia, and in 2020, everybody knows that. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.