Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandana Seyfeddinipur

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. There's a common consensus that she's only just over the mark, but there is still consensus that notability, mainly by WP:PROF (criterion 7) has been satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandana Seyfeddinipur[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article nominated on behalf of IP user. I am a neutral party but I believe the IP's nomination has some merit to it.

Reason provided: Certainly an accomplished academic/administator, but wikipedia can't have articles about all accomplished professionals. She doesn't meet WP:GNG: the only sources about her appear to be staff pages at the institutions she's worked at. And she doesn't meet WP:NPROF either: of the dozen or so papers she's published, the most cited has 66 citations; she has a somewhat stronger claim to notability as a head of the ELDP program: though an important funding body in this field, this is very far from the scale which would confer automatic notability to its head. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - her work on endangered languages is vitally important. I'm not sure that she is important as a scholar. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As the original AFD was opened for lack of sourcing, I added several more. I think the subject may pass GNG, at least based on the several book reviews of her work. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But these sources are not about her, they're about other things and mention her only in passing. And book reviews are ubiquitous in academia so wouldn't much help even towards establishing the notability of the books reviewed. 2A00:23C4:7C94:0:A99C:D9C0:F5D3:E8BD (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that the most important ref for her is this one on BBC, but I'm not sure that she is notable as an academic.Farhikht (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a clear pass of WP:NPROF but has an academic leadership position and nontrivial media mentions based on the newly added sources (and easily verified by just a Google search). —Kusma (t·c) 08:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've found any further sources, would you mind sharing them? All the sources in the article (newly added or old) are the following: [1] [2] (both contain a few quotes from her about language endangerment, the only thing they tell us about her is her position in ELDP), [3] (a deadlink presumably to her dissertation), [4] (a review of her book), [5] (her staff page at Soas), [6] (a press release where she's just mentioned as the head of ELDP), [7] (again, only a mention of her as head of ELDP), [8] (a review of a volume she's co-edited). I really don't see how this could amount to non-trivial coverage. And to say "not a clear pass of WP:NPROF" is to put it mildly: for an academic administrator, NPROF generally requires something along the lines of a chancellor of a major university, not the head of a funding body with probably fewer than five employees. 2A00:23C4:7C94:0:A99C:D9C0:F5D3:E8BD (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that she seems to be a commonly consulted expert on endangered languages. Here is another interview (probably the same one mentioned here, but paywalled). If the article does not end up being kept outright, I would recommend redirecting to Endangered Languages Archive (with the history intact) so we can easily revisit this in the future. —Kusma (t·c) 06:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think there's just barely enough in the news-search results to qualify per WP:GNG/WP:PROF#C7/the general sense that when someone is quoted as an authority, it's in the public interest that we document who they are. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that there is evidence that she meets WP:PROF#C7. That says "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Seyfeddinipur has been quoted and interviewed in the US, Germany (as already mentioned) and here [9], India [10], and in the Guardian, Aljazeera, The Times and other major media. I would say that this meets WP:PROF#C7. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.