Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahra Razavi


 * 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Shahra Razavi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources provided are mostly staff/contributor profile pages - not independent or reliable, plus one article written by the subject, so not independent. My own search turns up a few mentions in reliable sources, but only where she provides a quote as part of an article about a different topic - none of the articles are about her so there is no depth of coverage. Appears to fail WP:GNG and also WP:AUTHOR despite having a few published works to her name as there is no indication that she is regarded as an important figure, widely cited, or her works are well-known or have attracted any critical attention. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep (article creator) The amount of WP:BEFORE carried out here could literally have been no more than 15 minutes, since the article was nominated for deletion 20 minutes after creation (how many of the items listed at WP:GDBN were carried out in those 15 minutes?). She is a senior UN official, director of a department of the ILO - there are only 9 department directors. She is a global expert in the field of gender and development as attested by her holding the directorship of the Progress of the World's Women report and publications in leading academic journals.  The reference in the article from the World Bank is not a staff page but an expert recognition page, she has never worked at the World Bank.  She holds a position well-above an equivalent full-professor rank at a university. Board member of international academic associations....all of which is revealed from a genuine review of the subject.  A prod here would have been quite reasonable, AfD is simply inappropriate. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 15 minutes is more than adequate to carry out a thorough WP:BEFORE. In fact I doubt it took me even half that time to read the four sources in the article and conduct the basic searches required. I appreciate it’s not pleasant having your work nominated for deletion but I do wish people would focus on making a clear, policy-based case for keep, rather than attacking the behaviour of delete nominators - it’s not productive. Anyway, the World Bank source is not an ‘expert recognition page’, it’s a speaker profile - in no way a reliable source and highly likely to have been provided by Razavi herself. Nothing else that you have said indicates passing the GNGs. Hug</i>syrup 20:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been round here long enough that I take nothing personal about anything to do with this encyclopaedia. What I am concerned about is the general overuse of AfD in lieu of basic editing processes. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that any form of adequate BEFORE can be done in 15 minutes (or less as claimed) here.  I think applying commonsense rather than an abridged AfD guidebook is a far more useful mechanism - especially when subjects cross category boundaries.  So, the subject is not simply an academic (although aspects of her work are academic), but having been a board member of the International Association for Feminist Economics and an editorial board member of Feminist Economics would indicate that multiple aspects of WP:ACADEMIC are met. The subject is an international civil servant, so aspects of WP:POLITICIAN are relevant, ie holding an international office, but I accept that some may not find that categorisation conclusive.  However, out of the 36,000 odd international professional staff of the UN (which is not all UN staff, that number is much larger, but the highest category of all UN staff), she sits on a grade (D1/D2) that less than 7% have obtained - so sits within a highly significant category within the most significant category of UN staff. Regarding the source discussed, whether or not it is a speaker profile, it is from the World Bank - she has never worked for the World Bank, so it is independent.  Furthermore, the vast majority of work published by the UN is secondary source (the IPCC is the best example of this) - it is the only acceptable way to work amongst the constituents; it's not unreasonable to treat the UN agencies as RS.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the source discussed, whether or not it is a speaker profile, it is from the World Bank - she has never worked for the World Bank, so it is independent this is a complete mischaracterisation of what independence means. She may not have worked there, but she spoke at one of their events hence, naturally, why she has a speaker profile. A speaker profile is, almost by its definition, intended to promote the speaker or at least portray them in a positive light. They are often supplied by the speaker themselves, and are more akin to a press release than a substantial article about the individual. They are the furthest thing from independent, and no one can seriously believe that this is an 'independent, reliable source covering the subject in depth.' <i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>syrup 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by IphisOfCrete (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Goldsztajn's rationale. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above rationale. Additionally, I did some WP:BEFORE myself and added a few more links. I also found numerous academic books from major university presses citing Razavi     It definitely looks like you could have, and should have, taken a bit more time.
 * Please don't assume that because I didn't add things, I didn't find them. Being cited in a few books is not evidence of notability per se, and there is no clear agreement on how many cites are required to meet WP:ACADEMIC. The other sources you added are yet more examples of articles about other topics that simply quote Razavi. If you're going to attack me for an alleged lack of WP:BEFORE, it would be nice to at least show an understanding of what constitutes an acceptable source. <i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>syrup 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let's break down some metrics. She has been cited in a lot more than a "few books" but I intentionally highlighted citations from major academic publications which address the very same topics that Razavi researches, ie women's rights, economic developments & gender equity, etc. The sources I added are actually quite relevant if you read Criterion 7 for WP:NACADEMIC which states that "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". Other sources in the article discuss Razavi's work instead of her personal biography, but for notability purposes that actually seems preferable. The thrust of this should be to determine whether she can be considered an authority in her field, and whether her work has made a broad impact.


 * Worldcat shows that she has 5,226 library holdings, which is significant for a scholar in the humanities. By contrast, Jordan Peterson (a very well known author and professor, though I'm personally not a fan) has 4,796. I think this is a good litmus test for her notability as an academic. Further, she has an h-index of 14, while the average full professor in sociology has a 3.7 and the average full economics professor has a 7.6. Now h-index is not good as a standalone metric because it can be misleading across different fields, and can be influenced by a wide range of variables. However, I think this lines up fairly well with the rest of the information available. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, for her academic works Alex-h (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the above point that she meets WP:ACADEMIC through Criteria 7 (“The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.”) but for different reasons than listed above. As already said, “Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.” I personally don’t think academic book citations count as “outside academia” explicitly, so here are a list of conventional media that have quoted her (and her UN academic work) as an academic expert, in the area of women & labor/economics:
 * 1) CNN Money
 * 2) Al Jazeera
 * 3) Devex
 * 4) Stuff.co.nz
 * 5) CNN Indonesia
 * 6) Women in the World
 * 7) Thomson Reuters Foundation
 * 8) Bretton Woods Project
 * 9) Reuters
 * 10) The Independent
 * Her working in a head research position in a United Nations branch has led her to having substantial impact outside academia, and to being quoted frequently as an academic expert (inside and outside of academia). I think this, along with her past and current UN research positions, and along with her long list of published academic work and references in other academic books (shown above and through an easy google books or google scholar search) is more than enough to establish notability (even if someone doesn't think any of these individually is notable enough on its own). WP:ACADEMIC notability also overrides the idea that "none of the articles are about her so there is no depth of coverage," because this type of notability is "measured by their academic achievements." Most of the articles you can find online that mention her are about her work & research.
 * (Also, I want to point out that she is sometimes referred to as "Shahrashoub Razavi" professionally, since I have a found some older UN press and articles referring to her that way.) Whisperjanes (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above points and in line with fulfilling WP:ACADEMIC through Criteria 7. Edited that Ravazi was an invited contributor to a Japan's journal on welfare policies discussion; Ravazi's analysis as UNRISD officer on care giving sectors among six Asian countries binds topics by Japanese researchers, evoking a long term discussion.

--Omotecho (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. I think she passes WP:ACADEMIC.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is enough information already provided to support the claim of her notability. She has enough coverage and a notable person in her field. Also fullfilling the WP:ACADEMIC - The9Man  &#124; (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.