Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdolrahman Razani

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Abdolrahman Razani


Two copies of repeatedly submitted autobiography of professor. I haven't tagged it for G11 because it isn't unambiguously just advertising, because the subject probably satisfies academic notability. However, there is a history of repeated submissions and deletions in article space and draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If this isn't unambiguous advertising, and probably passes academic notability, then why isn't it in main space rather than draft space? The previous deletions were due to it being an unsourced BLP and then for it being unambiguous advertising, but both of those issues have been overcome. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - First, it was submitted in draft space, and I will never move something from draft space to article space that will pollute article space. Second, it is conflict of interest, and it does violate Wikipedia is not for resumes.  Third, do we really want to encourage the submission of autobiographies by saying that they should go in article space because they aren't quite bad enough for G11?  Do we really want to encourage every self-promoting professor to put their autobiography in either draft space or article space?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't find it promotional. It seems like a typical WP:PROF bio, though it is not a slam dunk meeting of WP:PROF, more of an edge case. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled as to why Robert McClenon wants this deleted if he thinks the subject "probably satisfies academic notability". Surely in that case we should keep it and help the editor to improve it, rather than delete it? However, I don't agree that the subject probably satisfies academic notability: I am more inclined to agree with Legacypac that this is "more of an edge case", and in my opinion on the wrong side of the edge. I don't see anything to indicate that he is any more than a fairly ordinary academic. If that were the whole story, I would say we should advise the editor that the draft is unlikely to ever be accepted, while leaving it as a draft, but that is not the whole story.
 * The editor's only purpose here is to use Wikipedia to host a page about himself. He has repeatedly created versions of this page, the first time in July 2016, in main space and in user space, and he has also posted a copy of it to Template talk:PD-self. He has never done any other editing at all. When an editor has been persistently trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion for several years, and when he does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, so that his attempts are unlikely ever to come to fruition, there comes a time when we need to say "enough is enough". There are currently three copies of the page in existence: the two listed above by Robert McClenon, and User:Arazani. I shall speedily delete the user page under speedy deletion criterion UD (use of user space as a web host). The others should be deleted too, since the only effects that keeping them are likely to have are encouraging the editor to take up more of his own time and that of other editors by continuing to try to get an article accepted that is never going to make it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Many articles about professors are authored by themselves or others at their universities. The only "problem" that has been demonstrated is that this one happens to work in Iran. The Google scholar profile shows 916 citations with an h-index of 18, which, for a mathematician, is almost certainly enough to pass WP:PROF. None of this editor's attempts at creating this article would have been met by such hostility if he had worked in a Western Anglophone country. This should be moved to mainspace and, if people want to be told that an Iranian mathematician can be just as notable as one from the US or the UK, a discussion started at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Phil, you are speculating as to editors' motivations. I believe that I would have reached exactly the same opinion for exactly the same article but with its subject in a different country. You think I wouldn't. Can you provide the evidence which has led you to hold that view? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm confused by this nomination. Isn't submitting material as a draft and requesting that someone else evaluate its notability exactly the process we recommend for editors who have a COI? If so, why are we using "an editor with a COI followed this process" as the rationale for deletion? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:David Eppstein, User:Phil Bridger - An editor with a COI went through the motions of following the process in order to bludgeon the process and is gaming the system with multiple copies, which isn't part of the process. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Robert, can you point to diffs? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plausibly notable. Autobiography, bad but not a delete reason. Give allowance for countering systematic bias. Iranian academics are underrepresented. I’m looking for similar pages in Persian ... —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar. H-index 18.  Too low?  "A contraction theorem in fuzzy metric spaces"  A 2005 single author paper with 43 citations (google scholar)
 * Travels internationally giving seminars https://www.math.umanitoba.ca/seminars/2018/11/1/abdolrahman-razani/ Only a department seminar, and not even a published biography.
 * No Wikipedia in either Arabic or Persian. I advise the author to do them first.
 * Pushing, autobiographically, for an en.wikipedia.org page looks like self-promotion.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete according to the research above this falls on the "not notable" side of the edge of WP:PROF. Long term self promotion takes me over the edge to deletion. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: disruptive promotional editing. If the subject is notable (of which I'm not convinced), a non-involved volunteer would create a page in due time. There's no hurry to get to such a state however. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Just rejected the sandbox after it was submitted again. CoolSkittle  (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment now he is at the AfC help desk complaining the page has been deleted - which is not correct. Legacypac (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete These two drafts are autobiographies. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 08:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep? . Good GS citations for pure math. The ? would not be there but for obnoxious behavior of author. Defer to Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
 * I would like to defer to David Eppstein too, but he hasn't given his opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True. If this were an article, in its current state, I would side with delete — no pass of WP:PROF has been demonstrated. And the "fuzzy" in his google scholar profile is a bit of a red flag for me, indicating both that his research is less likely to be something I would think of as serious mathematics and more likely to be part of a citation circle of other fuzzy researchers. Actual pure math is low-citation but I'm less sure that's true for the fuzzies. As a draft, though, I'm less sure — is it bad enough that we need to delete it now instead of waiting for six months of inactivity and then deleting it? Or should a draft with little likelihood of a successful promotion be deleted earlier to save later effort of reviewers having to keep responding to repeated inadequate submissions? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasting our time so deletion now is better Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.