Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rana Dajani

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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Dajani[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC— does not hold any named chairs, is not a department head, etc. I don't think that academic fellowships and visiting professorships will satisfy a notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. A quick search on news, journals. google proves that the nominator did not take the time to research before nominating for delete. May i respectfully ask why KDS4444 (talk) did you not do the necessary research? The subject of this page has been cited at KNPR, Nature Magazine, Nature.com, Middletown Press, Yale News, the Chronicle for Higher Education, Jordan Times and others. You did not do your homework, kind fellow wikipedian before nominating for deletion, no? If so why? So many women are deleted without any background checks, without checks of their maiden names, without checks on alternative news sources that are not dominate by the male mainstream corporate funding sources. Why so trigger happy, my brother? I have not even looked at books, jstor, and other scholarly sources, yet there are so many! - why delete without inquiry, kindness and generousity, sir? What gives? Too many keys to compress or? PRACTICE Restraint. Research. Resitance. PLEASE PEACEFUL contributions to our global encyclopedia, dear. SUBJECT CLEARLY MEETS WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNP Netherzone (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, there's quite a lot of coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], which clearly meets the WP:GNG from where I'm standing. Her GS record has a couple of highly-cited papers that may constitute a very weak argument for WP:PROF#C1, but she's more notable for her work on educational outreach and as a commentator on evolution and Islam (i.e. WP:PROF#C7). – Joe (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please see resources in my sandbox. there's wide of coverage about dr al dajani. Also i am planning to improve the article as soon as possible in my leisure time----مصعب (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to claims I did not "do my homework" before making this nomination: a Google search on her name turns up Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, MyLife, Whitepages, Intelius, YouTube, InstantCheckmate, 411, NamesDirectory.net, MyHeritage, and a series of other directory listings. I did not look beyond the first 50 hits because none of them qualified as relevant for a Wikipedia notability argument. She only got 266 hits overall, including all of these directory listings and social networking sites. Given this, the subject does not WP:CLEARLY seem to be notable. Promises to improve the article come right out of WP:AADD. What would have been better is if someone added some of the "references" mentioned above to the article so that her notability could be made more evident and reviewable rather than having them added to her deletion discussion where they are much, much more difficult to assess. KDS4444 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444, it was I who used the term that offended you, "do your homework" and for that I apologize. I'm sorry I made you feel disrespected, but for some reason, we are getting remarkably different search results. What is perplexing about your response, is that when I do a Google Search, I come up with 7,840 hits, the first five ones are: Nature.com, Yale News, Arabian Business (that BTW, this publication names her one of the top 100 Arab women in Science), the Jordan Times, and MIT News. When I look on Google Scholar there are 232 citations and she is the lead author of some of the scientific papers found there. I'm wondering if it has something to do with browser settings? My searches did not come up with any of the social networking sites that were reflected in your results. Netherzone (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: I must also be using a different search engine to you because for me this search returns 20,000+ hits and there are dozens of reliable sources in the first 50. All of the twelve sources I linked above constitute significant coverage of Dajani in a reliable source. There are several more in مصعب's sandbox. These do not have to be added to the article to make Dajani notable; it's enough that they exist. – Joe (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at some Google settings, because perhaps maybe MINE are the ones that are off. Here is a link to the page that Google generated when I did my search, please let me know (any of you and for my own sake) if you get a list longer than I indicated above: <https://www.google.com/search?num=40&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=%22raja+dajani%22&oq=%22raja+dajani%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i13i30k1j0i8i13i30k1.1827.8388.0.8937.14.12.0.0.0.0.438.848.4-2.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..12.2.846.0..0.wDJYZRPaNoQ> Also, @Joe Roe: I am familiar with the fact that sources merely need to exist— I've been around long enough to be familiar with that guideline. What I meant above was that I wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion if I saw such sources already in the article. I didn't say it was mandatory, I said it would have been helpful (and I am still somewhat mystified that it was not done, if they exist). I am on the verge of withdrawing my nomination— please show me how my Google results are turning out so differently from those of others! (Note for Joe: you must not have put Raja Dajani in quotes, meaning you got all results that contained the word "Raja" as well as all results containing the word "Dajani", almost none of which are for "Raja Dajani", yes? Also: the 6th citation, to Nature, is an article she wrote herself— i.e., a primary source, which can't be used to substantiate a notability claim, as far as I can remember.) KDS4444 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is Rana Dajani. – Joe (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444 it seems that you may have misspelled her name in your Google search. Try searching for: "Rana Dajani" and you will find the correct person - a woman scientist of note. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant independent third-party coverage, meets GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete. With only 231 cites on GS [13] in a highly cited field it is far WP:Too soon to pass WP:Prof. Notability will have to be based on other grounds. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(...except no one really cares, do they... My guess is that this article will now be kept indefinitely.) KDS4444 (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is "one of the 20 most influential women scientists in the Islamic world 2014, #12 among the 100 most powerful women in the Arab world 2015 and 2014, and in the women in science hall of fame 2015." See this link for verification. Her being in the Science Hall of Fame passes the requirements without having to look further, but when you see her other accomplishments and how she has made an impact, this one is a no-brainer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she's a Fulbright Scholar, been spotlighted by magazines, is in a Hall of Fame, got a Library of Congress award that's not a grant, King Hussein Medal of Honor. How can her notability even be a question? Hildabast (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all the references above outlined by User:Joe Roe, this article subject easily passes WP:GNG. Subject has notability. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (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.