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. The major argument in favor of keeping is that WP:NACADEMIC assumes that full professors are notable. Several people disagree with this.

My own reading of WP:NACADEMIC leads me to believe that this argument is a mis-reading of the Specific criteria notes for criteria 5, which says, The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or Distinguished Professor [...] can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level. That doesn't mean that full professors are notable. It means that named chair appointees must also be full professors. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rozeta Gujejiani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not in any way notable, does not meet criteria in WP:ACADEMIC Scrabble Scribble (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this article was created on 21 September 2015 by გიორგი ჩუბინიძე, and is almost a word-for-word copy of the article he created in the Georgian wp on 20 August 2015, if it is kept will need to have a translation notice? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Greetings! Material presented in this article is verified and trusted, so reason for deleting it is not fair. It is partly translated and checked with relevant sources. Please, cancel requirement for deleting. Sincerely, Giorgi Chubinidze. გიორგი ჩუბინიძე (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @გიორგი ჩუბინიძე: It's not enough that the information is correct, the subject has to be notable. The notability criteria for academics on the English Wikipedia can be found at WP:PROF. I have not found sources in English that show that Gujejiani is notable. Can you give us any in Georgian that discuss her or her work? (We can use Google Translate to read them, but it's hard to search if you don't know Georgian). – Joe (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fair or not, GS cites are zero. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Xxanthippe: I'm not sure GS is going to be a very useful metric for a historian writing exclusively (?) in Georgian. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • GS list writings in Georgian, as you will see from the link. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
      • Yes but it's not nearly as good at indexing and calculating metrics for non-English scholarship. It's also comparatively poor at finding history and humanities papers. See [1]. This is why WP:PROF cautions "the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability". – Joe (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is one opinion, ten years old. Since then GS has expanded in scope and, if citations exist, GS will usually find them. GS will certainly find citations to humanities subjects. However, citations in humanities, particularly by older scholars, tend to be fewer than in the sciences. The difference of citation patterns between fields is well-known to anybody who frequents academic pages, and allowance is (or should) be made. One compares like with like; theology with theology- computer science with computer science. If notability is to be proved, sources have to be found and in this case they have not been yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. The article makes no case for notability by scholarly impact (not just publication) or in any other way. I'd be willing to change my mind if someone here turns up significantly better sources about the subject, but I suspect such sources would be in Georgian, making them difficult for non-Georgians to find. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless additional sources are forthcoming. There's nothing I can find. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- You cannot expect to find a lot of English language sources on a Georgian subject. An academic with 103 articles and 2 monographs has a large body of work, but you cannot expect English language citation indices to record this. Transliteration is not an exact science and even a minor difference in that is liable to upset the count from any citation index. If Georgian WP thinks her notable, I do not think we English one should dissent. Translation notices are only appropriate where the English needs improving. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Nowadays powerful search engines can be expected to find citations, if they exist. It has never been a Wikipedia policy that if sources cannot be found, it can be assumed that they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

What about these cites I found on GS? [2] [3] [4]? Not having an opinion per se but zero GS cites seems to be incorrect. Regards SoWhy 09:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done in digging out these 4 cites, but they are not in-depth enough for WP:Author and are not enough in number for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see any articles in those 4 links (rather 3) authored by the suspect. [5] here we only have a reference to something she's written, not the article itself by Rozeta Gujejiani, same [6] here as well, and [7] here - not even that. So GS count remains at 0. I can find nothing in Georgian as well. The person is not notable even by Georgian standards of academia as far as I understand them. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- a full professor would generally be kept if they were part of the English-speaking world; it's hard to evaluate the subject's body of work given the language barrier. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement above has no foundation in policy or precedent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep: NACADEMIC generally supports notability of a full professor and department head. We do have language issues and if the content that is in there is verifiable, which it apparently is, then it is clear this individual meets the GNG threshold. Maybe not by a big margin, but enough. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please give policy support to your claim that NACADEMIC generally supports notability of a full professor and department head. I can find no such justification there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. If other editors think there's likely to be enough coverage in Georgian sources to keep this article then I'd consider that a good outcome, but I'm not sure where this idea that WP:PROF presumes full professors are notable is coming from. What it actually says is that a named chair or distinguished professor at a major institution can be presumed to be notable (WP:PROF#C5). This is a significantly higher bar than just being a full professor (a term which, by the way, only makes sense in a North American context). Besides, her English faculty page says Gujejiani is an associate professor [8]. – Joe (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is just too little evidence to indicate notability per WP:PROF. Being a full professor or a department head is certainly not enough for WP:PROF#C5. There is no other significant evidence that has been brought up to show passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject's modest accomplishments and positions don't rise to the level of WP:PROF. Lambtron (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure why XFDcloser is not listing 3rd relists in the proper category, it does for me. I foun some mentions in GS. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:01, 13 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.