>>14424157You can tag it as having the problem that one of its main editors appears to have a close personal connection to the subject (self), otherwise this
>>14425672 is the other option but absent the page itself we really can't judge. The latter option is far from sure-fire because even if a current article is "underdeveloped", any interested party can claim that the article will be improved in the future (the whole point of Wikipedia) even if notability does appear to be an issue. Ideally you should be able to base your judgment in the content of the edits and the summaries themselves (assuming you don't want your professor to know that you're the one who proposed it, also tip: if so, avoid using choice phrases that you are prone to use in your own work, academics are very good at spotting those similarities since all they do is read, write and cite others all day), otherwise if you want to play dumb and it isn't perfectly clear to the man on the street that such-and-such account is the person himself, your argument gets harder.
Currently I can think of one (humanities) academic who has a stub article and doesn't warrant one, a commie theorist who took a flattering picture of himself which is used as the intro pic on his article, and a STEM academic who deserves his own article but uploaded a slightly humorous picture of himself which is also used as the article's main thing.
