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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Nadella[edit]

Raj Nadella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG, not a notable person. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Named chair at major institution meets WP:PROF point 5. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the below responses, I note they rely on the commentary on the criteria, which are confusingly included in the same page, rather than the criteria themselves. Passes WP:NPROF Criterion 5, even though the commentary on criterion 5 seems to confusingly want to limit that criterion to full professors only, something not present in the actual wording of the SNG. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "commentary" is part of the guideline, not something separate. XOR'easter (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete: he's an associate professor, which means that the named chair doesn't really get us anywhere (per NPROF, "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments"). Google Books and Google Scholar find a handful of citations, but they seem to fall short of what would be need to meet NPROF #1 and/or WP:NAUTHOR. And I can't find any sources – either in the article or from searching – that would amount to a GNG pass. Always glad to reevaluate if there's something I'm missing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other question mark with applying WP:PROF#C5 here is whether Columbia Theological Seminary is a major institution of higher education and research. The purpose of C5 is a shortcut to identifying people who are at the top of their field; being elevated to a status above and beyond full professor indicates that the scholarly community has recognized their achievements. I note that Asilvering has added some book reviews, which could go towards satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Generally, though, it takes multiple reviews for multiple books apiece to comfortably pass that standard, and with only one single-author book and one co-edited volume (plus a book not yet published), that's harder to argue for. XOR'easter (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I put those in but the other books are either just recently released or still in the works, so no reviews yet. I was thinking of arguing that there's really no point in deleting this when that third book is going to come out soon (it's a textbook, so I think it's highly likely it will get a number of reviews), but it looks like the publication date on that has been pushed back to the end of this year. Who knows if it will get pushed back again. I think this article will just end up being recreated or undeleted later, but I don't have a good argument for keep either. -- asilvering (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Writing books doesn't qualify for creating articles. For BLP's the author should have significant coverage in media or newspaers or even books that gives complete details about him. I think you need to go through WP:BLP, and WP:GNG. Primary sources should be verifiable. If you go through Google scholar there are many people who wrote books or published many journals like this. That doesn't mean they all can create articles here. The post he held is also not of much significance. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 13:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF are the relevant notability guidelines for an academic who has written books. Nothing in WP:BLP requires that an author have lengthy biographical profiles in newspapers or books before we can write about them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you people have already proved that the person didn't qualify for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. I didn't mention anything about them. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 16:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can find only a tiny number of citations on GS, even in the low cited field of theology, so WP:Prof#C1 is not passed. As above C5 is not passed either. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Per the concerns above, we don't have a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and the case for WP:PROF#C5 is extremely questionable. It's too soon to say that WP:AUTHOR is met; a second single-author book might clear that threshold, but it won't be out for months, and (knowing how academic book reviews happen) it might not be reviewed for months after that. And even after trimming the copyvio that Earwig detected, the remaining prose still reads like it was copied from somewhere. Starting from scratch when notability is clear would be the best thing for it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:PROF, neither #1 nor #5. --hroest 19:12, 17 February 2022 (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.