Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirhossein Sahebkar


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Amirhossein Sahebkar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

He has many citations but most of them are co-authored with many people (see Google scholar) and it is unclear how significant his contributions actually are. The page does not mention any particular significant contribution. The only non-primary reference is a list of people with the most citations where he was placed 2843rd. The list is not live, but it is archived) Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Hard not to Keep under WP:Prof on basis of GS citation record. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC). I note that every paper I have looked at has a vast number of authors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 02:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom. No evidence for independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC).
 * Delete: Well the second citation is now a dead link, but ranking 2800th and something isn't notable. First one is primary source, with nothing extra that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep C1 does not say anything about the co-authors. More references in the Persian page. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion on how useful citation counts are for establishing academic natability and one point brought up there was exactly the studies with huge collaborator lists (see this comment: ). If you think citations from such studies should be equally important, please bring it up there. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. When faced with the issue of how to assess citations from huge collaborations, my usual response it to scan his profile counting only the first-author papers. Necessarily this will lower the subject's citation counts but I think that the resulting lowered counts will be easier to calibrate against the field than counts from publications with so many coauthors that Google won't even list them all. Anyway, for Sahebkar I find "Are curcuminoids effective" (sole author), 340; "Curcumin downregulates human tumor necrosis factor" (five authors), 296; "Effect of curcuminoids on oxidative stress" (four authors), 244; "New peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists" (three authors), 217; "Lipid-modifying effects of nutraceuticals" (seven authors), 189; "Curcuminoids modulate pro‐oxidant–antioxidant balance" (nine authors), 178; "Why it is necessary to translate curcumin into clinical practice" (sole author), 176, etc. I think this shows that, even when only first-author papers are considered, he has a pattern of well-cited publications and moreover a clear focus for his research topics, enough to make me comfortable with calling this a pass of WP:PROF. But that's not the only hurdle. The other question is whether we have enough depth of sourcing to support more than a one-sentence sub-stub. Currently we don't even have that. We only have one database-like primary source listing him as a contractor/visitor at an Australian university, and supporting none of the claims in the article. (The webometrics.info source is not even worth discussion.) So the article as it stands fails WP:V, which trumps notability. I tried some cursory searches but only found random author and speaker profiles likely written by the subject. But if more substantial sourcing of his education and career milestones can be turned up, it might be enough to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like there are some Farsi language sources. I've made some updates to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. An assessment of the Farsi sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  20:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep the added sources by show notability, especially having won a major award. This would fulfill C2 of WP:NACADEMIC. Other concerns of a microstub addressed above seem solved now. Broc (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. As mentioned by others, while his h-factor is large this is for multiple author reviews and should not be considered just by itself. With just his h-factor I would have voted delete. However, the addition of the award satisfies what has been discussed in WT:NPROF (but not as yet formalized), a need for reputable awards to indicate that others recognize notability. It is only a weak keep as this is a national award; if it was international then it would be a strong keep. (I still slightly wonder about the award.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I can't necessary see the subject passing WP: SIGCOV but per WP: NPROF because of the award.  Otuọcha   (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 2:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: While coverage has been very limited to two non-resume mentions, Amirhossein Sahebkar has recently won a prestigious award, an indication of future potential (as to the expansion and long-term viability of the page) and additional supporting coverage.


 * 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.