Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Luis Mendoza-Cortes: Difference between revisions

Jose Luis Mendoza-Cortes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article is very bad shape written with LLMs, WP:COI, does not follow WP:MOS, and it is mostly based on WP:PRIMARY. Aside from that awards are mostly early career awards, WP:NOTABILITY is unclear. ReyHahn (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Physics-related deletion discussions. ReyHahn (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don’t see that any of the WP:NPROF criteria would be satisfied. The prizes are not prestigious enough (I did not find the “Emerging star”). Still an assistant professor, so likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This is one of the worst articles I have seen. I just deleted the masses of description of his work (>100K), and added both WP:Peacock and WP:COI tags, the latter because the information included suggests UPE/autobiographical or one of his students. (I have not checked for sock action.) Leaving aside the horrendous structural problems that still remain, he has made a decent start but is some years away from a pass of WP:NPROF, both on citations and also no senior awards. Based upon what has happened with the editing here I think the page needs a WP:Salt as well, as otherwise I expect a rapid recreation.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Ldm could not be more right; unfortunately whoever wrote this article has misunderstood the role of wikipedia. I don’t think he satisfies NPROF yet, but even if he does, the article needs a complete re-write from scratch. Some of the material here is exaggerated beyond verification. For instance, his high school chemistry Olympiad “He completed perfect problems in the 34th International Chemistry Olympiad at Groningen, Netherlands 2002” is supported by a reference that ranked him an “honorable mention” (ranked 191 out of 225), not a medal winner; just getting selected for that sort of thing is a big achievement, but a little honesty about the result wouldn’t go amiss here. Other parts of the material are utterly irrelevant (what’s with the stuff about the Nobel prize?). A peacock would, frankly, be embarrassed. Nothing against someone writing a proper article about him when he satisfies NPROF. Elemimele (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This article has a style that suggests that someone was looking for ways to justify its inclusion in WP (looking only at what remains after trimming), and failed (it does not feel like it satisfies WP:NPROF, as noted by others). Several links that I tried to follow were non-existent or did not mention the subject. His name also rings a bell with regard to academic fame-seeking ethics, though I must check my library for the published claim. —Quondum 14:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This is almos worth preserving as an example of how to not write an article. But in any case not in mainspace. Tercer (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not passing WP:PROF or anything else. Even after massive cleanup, there’s still bad sourcing, like reliance upon WP:FORBESCON. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn’t find enough solid secondary sources to justify keeping the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mexico and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – this article is the sort of reason why we have the WP:AFC process, to verify the sourcing and notability. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – the sources are either by him, or are irrelevant. Either this was written by an LLM or 137 chimpanzees. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It’s clear there is enough consensus about deleting this awful article, but I wanted to vote just so I could comment on some sources not corresponding to the subject, which looks like AI errors. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]