Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farinaz Koushanfar


 * 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 snow keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Farinaz Koushanfar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:NOTRESUME, article seems to consist solely of vanity links with only an "Honours" and "Resources" section linking to said honors. Transfo47 (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 2.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, nomination completely fails to address the relevant notability criterion (WP:PROF), for which the primary nature of the sources is irrelevant. Koushanfar easily passes WP:PROF#C1 with heavily cited publications and #C3 as a fellow of the IEEE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is irrelevant.
 * "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion
 * This request pertains to the latter point, and the article is not encyclopedic in nature, but fundamentally promotional, which no one seems to have addressed. Transfo47 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since User:Transfo47 appears to be doubling down (literally!) on their assertion that WP:NOT, rather than any notability criterion, should be controlling in this case, I think it's important to observe that WP:NOTCV is primarily about the mis-use of user pages to host material irrelevant for Wikipedia editing, and the mis-use of article space for user-space-like personal content. It does not even say that Wikipedia articles should avoid looking like resumés, and although to some extent that is true (we should be more selective about what we mention than a resumé might be, we need sources where a resumé wouldn't, and it is preferable to use prose instead of just bulleted lists of accomplishments) these formatting issues are not a valid reason for deletion. A Wikipedia article is not a user page, and the only thing NOTCV says about articles is that they should use formal English. We have no evidence here that this article was created by the subject, and even if it were an autobiography, the fact that the article has been improved by multiple other editors based on the notability of the subject removes that issue from the table. Additionally, Transfo47's repeated use of the word "vanity" violates WP:BLP (we are not allowed to disparage living people without evidence, whether in article space or in Wikipedia discussions). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Clear pass of NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did the nominator seemingly take no notice of my edit summary when I contested WP:PROD deletion? If you wish to disagree with it then do so, but don't just ignore it by not explaining why I was wrong in the deletion rationale. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is irrelevant.
 * "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion
 * This request pertains to the latter point, and the article is not encyclopedic in nature, but fundamentally promotional, which no one seems to have addressed. Transfo47 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How is the article promotional in any way? It sounds like you've never even seen a wiki article on an academic before let alone read the relevant guidelines...which is kind of a problem if you're trying to nominate an academic bio for deletion! JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Clear pass of WP:NPROF as others have said. Also need to take note of WP:ATD and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator's complaint is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. As an WP:ATD they could fix the problem through editing. pburka (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear pass of WP:Prof and more. Redlink nominator is advised to withdraw. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Snow keep. Named chair + IEEE fellow + plenty of pubs for C1 (even in a medium-high citation field) makes this clear.  The sourcing could be improved, but WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Obvious pass of WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep notable professor, passes WP:PROF. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brayan ocaner (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NPROF, named chair, IEEE fellow etc, etc, can a sensible admin please early close this embarrassment. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2021 (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.