Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid A. Chotani

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 delete. Sandstein 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid A. Chotani[edit]

Hey, kids, someone posted their own biography/cirriculum vitae! How do we know this? Well, we don't for absolutely-gosh-darn sure, but here are two clues: 1) The article subject's surname is "Chotani." 2) The original (and only) author is User:Chotani. Coincidence? I think not. And there are no references at all, nothing by which to verify, and Google search turns up no relevant hits. That makes him not notable, aside from the vanity of it all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful. Don't bite. Tparameter (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. A meager effort at sanity preservation on my part. I've seen too many of these lately. Is that Viedo Professor guy selling a DVD called "How to Get Yourself on Wikipedia" now or something? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy userfy. That's what I would do if I found this article submitted for speedy deletion, since the author has not set up his own userpage and his name matches the subject of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfy - ...but you should note that 'google hits' themselves are not a reason to delete a page. asenine ^{say what?} 05:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment was missing AfD template from article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks too much like non-notable bio/spam and Wiki is not a webhost for C.Vs - No way to verify that the user and the subject are in fact the same person without going through the proper channels which is up to the author and not to us. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search of Medline and WoS shows only three papers, two with no citations and one with 4 citations. Googlescholar[1] and GoogleBooks[2] also show little evidence of having made substantial impact in the field. I would say he fails WP:PROF for the moment and it does not look like he passes WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced and largely likely unsourceable. I don't see the point of userfication — that should only be for articles that need work to be made sufficiently verifiable to be an article but can be a decent article once that work is put into them. Here, the problem doesn't seem to be a need for improvement in the writeup but rather a need for improvement in the person's real-world prominence; that's not something userfication can fix. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I think my "userfy" comment was misunderstood. User:Chotani is a new editor here. He created a page about (presumably) himself. It would have been accepted if he had created it as his own user page, but instead he created it in the mainspace, where it is not appropriate. My recommendation was to move Rashid A. Chotani to User:Chotani with the ensuing cross-namespace redirect being deleted per WP:CSD R2. Thus, the editor would get the page he created about himself on his own user page, and it would be out of the mainspace, never to be moved back. Even if Rashid Chotani later turned out to be notable, we would want to write the article differently in the mainspace by basing it on independent sources rather than his own autobiographical statements. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm-m, I don't like this idea at all. First, this kind of decision is up to User:Chotani. He can create a copy of the current Rashid A. Chotani anywhere in his user space right now. Second, the kind of stuff that is currently in Rashid A. Chotani is not really appropriate for a user page, per WP:USER. Some basic biographical info, sure, but moving the current text there would be essentially equivalent to creating an ad. There is an excessive amount of material here that is completely unrelated to Wikipedia as a project. Nsk92 (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I and Realyhick failed to find any specific source from which this was copied, though it certainly does sound that way. I tried the various websites for his projects as well as Google, and found various similar paragraphs for portions of it, but not similar enough for copyvio. The notability would be more the administrative positions than the research. As for the research, WoS finds 4 papers, of which "Title: Innovative surveillance methods for rapid detection of disease outbreaks and bioterrorism: Results of an interagency workshop on health indicator surveillance Author(s): Pavlin JA, Mostashari F, Kortepeter MG, et al., Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Volume: 93 Issue: 8 Pages: 1230-1235 Published: AUG 2003 " has 7 citations. Scopus, shows 12 citations for it with its wider range, but that's the top. DGG (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF and therefore deletion from mainspace benefits the project. I'd support userfying this if the user had an edit history, and therefore a WP benefitting reason for having a user page, but this autobiography is the editors only contribution. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2008 (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.