Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naresh Dalal


 * 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. 

Result was Keep. &mdash; Caknuck 05:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Naresh Dalal

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable college professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 13:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC) * This AfD has been bundled with the AfD for R. Mark Isaac - see Articles for deletion/R. Mark Isaac. Dsreyn 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Award-winning chemist who lectures internationally, and who is noted for significant contributions to medical imaging. C'mon guys, this nom represents a lack of effort to find sources. There are plenty of reliable ones easily found with a simple google search for "Naresh Dalal." DickClarkMises 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's up to the article's editors to produce sources and demonstrate notability; it's not my responsibility as the AfD nominator to produce that. Dsreyn 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we have a policy that directs us to Assume good faith, and that means that you should assume that the contributor of this article was acting in good faith in adding it. This article is not obviously a bad faith (i.e. vanity, autobio, defamatory, etc.) one and therefore it is incumbent on the person nomming it for deletion to explain why it ought to be deleted. That an article needs improvement is not a valid reason to delete it. DickClarkMises 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be nice to assume that everybody who creates articles does so in good faith, but we all know that articles that fall way below the notability standards are created regularly.  You simply can not assume that every article that is added belongs in Wikipedia. fbb_fan 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DickClarkMises. If you, as nominator, see something that is too stubby, I think it's incumbent upon you to do some research to determine whether the correct decision is to expand it or to delete it. If you don't want to do that research, don't take it upon yourself to make the nomination. It doesn't appear that you have done that research here. —David Eppstein 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' *Keep Full professor, holder of a named chair at an important university.Such people are almost always notable, as they get there having passed many reviews from the peers for notability. all we need do it record it. The publications cn of course be listed, but the N is apparent in the present state. The article need only be sourceable. I notice furthermore that all of these people are from Florida State University . I am not sure whether the nom thinks no professors notable, or simply no professors from that particular institution. DGG 03:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to modify my statement about the nom. Considering all the other carelessly written FSU faculty articles just inserted, it is nderstandable for someone to get a feeling of impatience, and nominate the lot of them. DGG 05:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Full professorship certainly doesn't satisfy WP:PROF, and I don't see how named chairs automatically qualify either.  Simply assuming that such people are automatically notable seems like a poor reason to keep the article.  I don't see any real assertion of notability otherwise.  I have no problem with profiles on notable college professors, but this isn't Who's Who in American Universities either. fbb_fan 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -- tyrue that a chair in and of itself does not estabblish noteworthiness, but a) his awards, and b) his publications, which are covered in the press, do. Thi9s guy is at the cutting edge of the chemistry side of medical imaging and deserves a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.