Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arizona
 | Points of interest related to Arizona on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arizona. 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|Arizona|~~~~}} 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 Arizona. 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.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Arizona
[edit]- Danda Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that the subject meets the academic notability guideline, as they are an associate professor without a title that satisfies the criteria. I'm also not seeing evidence that their work is highly cited. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Engineering, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. On Rawat's Google Scholar profile [1] the first two items are co-edited volumes and the third is a survey paper. The actual research contributions start at the fourth item. But I think there are still enough well-cited research contributions (albeit in a high-citation field) to make a case for WP:PROF#C1. ACM Distinguished Speaker is not enough for #C3 but it is also suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)- Updated to neutral, leaning weak delete because the promotional history of editing is a significant problem and the weak evidence for notability listed in my comment above, while valid, does not outweigh that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, @David Eppstein Yeah you're right here but I also added his individual research contributions in an article. Besides, I got that what you want to describe, I will see what else could be added to make that more notable Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @TechnoSquirrel69 Thanks for reviewing this article. I understand what you mean by, I will try my best to make it notable by adding more sources and depth information about the subject Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also, @TechnoSquirrel69 I want you to revert the tag for "Nominated for deletion". You could had add the other tags for the notability or you can use the tag for the lag of sources. It's just a humble request. Besides, I will make sure to follow all the guidelines accordingly. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Shariq Khan 1, I just want to note that the subject's notability is not within your control as an editor; their notability will remain the same regardless of the state of their article. The articles for deletion procedure requires that the deletion notice remain at the top of the article for the duration of the discussion, which will last at least a week. If the article is kept at the end of the discussion, the tag will be removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, @TechnoSquirrel69 Yeah i can understand that but the subject has done a lot in his career and i think there shouldn't be any notable issue for publishing an article according to Wikipedia guidelines. It might take bit time to get well managed and notable. Thanks to you for guiding me in this particular area. Also it would be really great for me if you could help by guiding me what else should i add to make the subject notable, I am still in learning process and that's the reason i am trying to publish articles on some random notable subjects. Thank you! Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, adding material to the article will not make the subject notable. To become notable as an academic, the subject needs recognition by his peers: heavy citation to his publications, fellowship in major scholarly societies, named professorship or distinguished professor title, and the like. See WP:PROF. Nothing we do here on Wikipedia is likely to have much effect on any of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, @David Eppstein yeah I know that and I am adding citations as well and I also added citations on the previous materials you can check that. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Again, adding material to the article will not make the subject notable. To become notable as an academic, the subject needs recognition by his peers: heavy citation to his publications, fellowship in major scholarly societies, named professorship or distinguished professor title, and the like. See WP:PROF. Nothing we do here on Wikipedia is likely to have much effect on any of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, @TechnoSquirrel69 Yeah i can understand that but the subject has done a lot in his career and i think there shouldn't be any notable issue for publishing an article according to Wikipedia guidelines. It might take bit time to get well managed and notable. Thanks to you for guiding me in this particular area. Also it would be really great for me if you could help by guiding me what else should i add to make the subject notable, I am still in learning process and that's the reason i am trying to publish articles on some random notable subjects. Thank you! Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Shariq Khan 1, I just want to note that the subject's notability is not within your control as an editor; their notability will remain the same regardless of the state of their article. The articles for deletion procedure requires that the deletion notice remain at the top of the article for the duration of the discussion, which will last at least a week. If the article is kept at the end of the discussion, the tag will be removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The at-best marginal argument for passing WP:PROF#C1 is outweighed by the vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, @XOR'easter I am totally disagreed with that point Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement because there is nothing in the article which triggers anything for an advertisement, spam or something. Besides, the argument for passing WP:PROF#C1 the article meets most of the notability guidelines for academics which can be quite enough for the subject's notability. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete. A classic example of a marginal publication record that is borderline for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else to demonstrate notability. When a BLP is borderline I look to see if there are significant peer awards or other recognition. I see nothing that is convincing. For Shariq Khan 1, arguing here does nothing, you need to improve the article to demonstrate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Or maybe, get the subject to up their game. Easier said than done, I know. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, @Ldm1954 Okay I understand i will try to manage that according to the notability guidelines Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Very weak keep The citation record for WP:PROF#C1 is indeed borderline, but I tend to favor keeping a borderline case because it seems possible that things will become more definitive before too much longer. But it's absolutely true that none of the other criteria are met. For example, none of the awards listed on the page support notability - they are all either internal awards, minor awards, or grant awards (something professors earn for doing what professors do). The page is also in need of a serious overhaul, not only to remove the tripe but also to make the rest of it form a coherent biographical narrative and provides a clear explanation of the subject's achievements. Qflib (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)