191:(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.--
394:
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. --
409:. 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. --
393:
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: "Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva (2nd nomination)" The
342:
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
233:
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
447:
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.
347:, 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. --
383:
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. --
460:. 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
200:
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.--
187:
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,
406:
370:
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
125:
210:
17:
476:
452:
439:
427:
413:
398:
388:
378:
363:
351:
326:
317:
308:
299:
284:
238:
217:
204:
195:
178:
131:
103:
86:
55:
117:
491:
313:
even if she did fail proftest, she is notable for being on multiple independent magazines. That is more than enough. --
174:
None of those things are proven in the article. Further, the notability for authors requires four published books. --
36:
359:
author. Article was an overwhelming keep in previous AfD just a few months back (nom should have mentioned that). --
280:, doublestandards.org, and MRZine, including writing a book fullfills both "mutliple" and "independent" in my view.--
490:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
424:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
322:
That's subjective. Let's see how the discussion unfolds because we're clearly not going to agree on that. --
163:
The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
465:
184:
142:
121:
75:
277:
214:
192:
128:
395:
375:
323:
305:
201:
175:
83:
52:
120:, and appears to be of general interest, fulfilling the first criteria in examples listed on the
127:
and returns 91 Unique google hits, which may seem like nothing, but is not bad for an academic.--
304:
Also fails proftest and notability is subjective which this individual does not seem to meet. --
405:
Well, in that case, I guess you should continue not to link to earlier AfD discussions such as
348:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
292:
273:
154:
The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
469:
371:
249:
96:
79:
461:
71:
169:
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
100:
49:
449:
148:
The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources.
436:
435:. Passes author test as frequently-published journalist in notable publications. —
423:
Should be evaluated as author rather than academic, and passes on author criteria.
344:
314:
296:
281:
235:
61:
82:. Vanity article - notability for authorship also not established in article.
183:
How exactly does listing the above respond to another blackletter listing on
160:
The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
473:
410:
385:
360:
166:
The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
151:
The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
209:
Please note the change I have made to the subject example section at
260:
Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple
484:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
116:. The book listed in the article is at at amazon.com
157:
The person has published a well-known academic work.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
407:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lila Rajiva
494:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
124:. She gets two hits through google scholar
295:for advice on how to expand the article.--
189:regardless of their academic achievements
211:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
74:) prof and author. fails to meet
24:
46:no consensus, bordering on keep
472:are Knowledge (XXG) policy. __
1:
44:The result of the debate was
264:of or awards for their work
145:at all. The criteria are:
511:
141:That does not qualify for
250:WP:BIO#People_still_alive
234:PROFTEST as per Strothra
487:Please do not modify it.
477:12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
453:02:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
440:13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
428:17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
414:03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
399:02:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
389:02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
379:02:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
364:02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
352:01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
327:23:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
318:23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
309:23:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
300:22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
285:22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
239:17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
218:17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
205:17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
196:17:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
179:17:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
132:16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
104:16:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
87:16:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
56:14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
272:Lets see... being in
95:: not conforming to
425:TruthbringerToronto
262:independent reviews
343:for someone like
502:
489:
293:Talk:Lila Rajiva
274:CounterPunch.org
34:
510:
509:
505:
504:
503:
501:
500:
499:
498:
492:deletion review
485:
278:Dissident Voice
215:Fuhghettaboutit
193:Fuhghettaboutit
129:Fuhghettaboutit
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
508:
506:
497:
496:
480:
479:
455:
442:
430:
417:
416:
403:
402:
401:
381:
367:
366:
354:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
288:
287:
269:
268:
267:
266:
254:
253:
242:
241:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
172:
171:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
135:
134:
106:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
507:
495:
493:
488:
482:
481:
478:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
454:
451:
446:
443:
441:
438:
434:
431:
429:
426:
422:
419:
418:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
392:
391:
390:
387:
382:
380:
377:
373:
369:
368:
365:
362:
358:
355:
353:
350:
346:
341:
338:
337:
328:
325:
321:
320:
319:
316:
312:
311:
310:
307:
303:
302:
301:
298:
294:
290:
289:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
265:
263:
258:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
244:
243:
240:
237:
232:
229:
228:
219:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
203:
199:
198:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
146:
144:
140:
137:
136:
133:
130:
126:
123:
119:
115:
112:
111:
107:
105:
102:
99:right now. --
98:
94:
91:
90:
89:
88:
85:
81:
77:
73:
70:non notable (
69:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
486:
483:
457:
444:
432:
420:
356:
345:Brian Greene
339:
261:
259:
245:
230:
188:
138:
113:
109:
108:
92:
67:
66:
45:
43:
31:
28:
466:WP:PROFTEST
185:WP:PROFTEST
143:WP:PROFTEST
122:WP:PROFTEST
114:Weak delete
76:WP:PROFTEST
62:Lila Rajiva
291:See also
101:Bootblack
50:Mackensen
396:Strothra
376:Strothra
324:Strothra
306:Strothra
202:Strothra
176:Strothra
84:Strothra
437:optikos
315:Striver
297:Striver
282:Striver
139:Comment
470:WP:BIO
372:WP:AGF
340:Delete
236:Bwithh
231:Delete
97:WP:BIO
93:Delete
80:WP:BIO
68:Delete
53:(talk)
462:WP:NN
72:WP:NN
16:<
474:meco
468:NOR
458:Keep
445:Keep
433:Keep
421:Keep
411:JJay
386:JJay
361:JJay
357:Keep
349:Mmx1
248:per
246:Keep
118:here
110:Keep
78:and
450:Rob
213:.--
464:,
448:--
374:--
276:,
48:.
252::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.