Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus, bordering on keep. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lila Rajiva
Delete non notable (WP:NN) prof and author. fails to meet WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO. Vanity article - notability for authorship also not established in article. Strothra 16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: not conforming to WP:BIO right now. --Bootblack 16:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Weak delete. The book listed in the article is at at amazon.com here, and appears to be of general interest, fulfilling the first criteria in examples listed on the  WP:PROFTEST. She gets two hits through google scholar  and returns 91 Unique google hits, which may seem like nothing, but is not bad for an academic.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That does not qualify for WP:PROFTEST at all. The criteria are:
 * The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.
 * The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
 * The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
 * The person has published a well-known academic work.
 * The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
 * The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
 * The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
 * The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
 * None of those things are proven in the article. Further, the notability for authors requires four published books.  --Strothra 17:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How exactly does listing [all of] the above respond to another blackletter listing on WP:PROFTEST that "An academic who has published a book of general interest, a widely-used textbook, or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is notable as an author, regardless of their academic achievements (emphasis supplied). The problem, of course, is how to define "general interest." That appears to speak to subject matter, i.e., not a textbook or treatment of arcane matters, but listing all the criteria in the first section there, and not treating the one I am obviously citing, is not responsive. I am always willing to consider new information. In this case I am changing my vote, but for a different reason, having checked other sources I see that the above section I have cited is poorly drafted (and needs to be reformed). In the main precedents section it is stated that: "Published authors are notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." That criteria she appears to fail and I agree with to an extent, though I do think the criteria for academics is out of balance with the too liberal standards which allow the keeping of all manner of cruft.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, general interest is a subjective term thus I do not discuss notability based on that criteria but a work certainly isn't general interest simply because it's on Amazon.com.--Strothra 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note the change I have made to the subject example section at Notability (academics).--Fuhghettaboutit 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete 2 hits on google scholar and 91 google hits is a very poor score for notability for an academic. An academic's main function is to publish and engage in discussions, and the internet typically plays a major part in this, so one should expect a higher google count for a notable academic. Also fails PROFTEST as per Strothra Bwithh 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BIO:
 * ''Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work


 * Lets see... being in CounterPunch.org, Dissident Voice, doublestandards.org, and MRZine, including writing a book fullfills both "mutliple" and "independent" in my view.--Striver 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Lila Rajiva for advice on how to expand the article.--Striver 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also fails proftest and notability is subjective which this individual does not seem to meet. --Strothra 23:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * even if she did fail proftest, she is notable for being on multiple independent magazines. That is more than enough. --Striver 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's subjective. Let's see how the discussion unfolds because we're clearly not going to agree on that. --Strothra 23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails proftest miserably. I'm sorry, but teaching "at" a university without any indication of tenure-track is a pretty shoddy level of "academic". Grad students teach at universities and are published regularly....however, we do not consider them to be professors. The "General interest" criteria is for someone like Brian Greene, who has popularized a subject by being prominent to the media and having a best-selling book (hence having an impact on the "general public" (despite a lack of academic notability), not simply any teacher who's written a general-interest book. --Mmx1 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep author. Article was an overwhelming keep in previous AfD just a few months back (nom should have mentioned that). -- JJay 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the rule which says that I should mention that. Besides, anyone can see that the article is being nominated for a second time. Please WP:AGF--Strothra 02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a rule, but it is standard practice- and no one on this page can see that this article has been renominated. I'm sure you will agree that there is little utility in endlessly debating the same articles. -- JJay 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating it. I am willing to discuss the AfD because, afterall, this is a discussion. But all users who come to this page see that it has been renominated because they see the large article title at the top which reads: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva (2nd nomination)" The 2nd nomination part is clearly visable to all users who come to this AfD discussion.  It is also clearly visable in the AfD tag on the main page of the article which tells the users it is a 2nd nomination.  All users should read the article before they discuss it in the AfD discussion.  There's absolutely no point in me stating that it's a second nomination.  It would be simply redundant and silly. --Strothra 02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, I guess you should continue not to link to earlier AfD discussions such as Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva. Nor should you attempt any explanation for why it was massively kept on AfD not so long ago, or why we should ignore the earlier debate (effectively thumbing our noses at all those previous participants). Meanwhile, I will continue to indulge my silly, redundant habit of pointing out those sorts of pointless links every time. -- JJay 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Should be evaluated as author rather than academic, and passes on author criteria. TruthbringerToronto 17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes author test as frequently-published journalist in notable publications. —optikos 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be just barely notable per above arguements. Also, its always a mistake not address the first nomination in a renomination.  Failure to address it, suggests, there's no flaw in the first, and no new reason, but merely a dislike at the outcome.  --Rob 02:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems to me that some arguments for deletion here would generally apply to stubs. The fact that an article is a stub in itself cannot be regarded as a criteroin for deletion. It should also be noted that NEITHER WP:NN, WP:PROFTEST NOR WP:BIO are Wikipedia policy. __meco 12:05, 6 June 2006 (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.