Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arghavan Salles


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. signed,Rosguill talk 02:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Arghavan Salles

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

Self promotional page, non-notable person Bumblebumbum (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, Iran,  and California. Skynxnex (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Profiles by American Womens Medical Association and Stanford, and the Time article (not specifically about her, but significant) should establish notability. She has an admirable publication record and has written for general media (e.g. the USA Today editorial).  All of these are already cited in the article.  Yes, the article tends toward the promotional and there are too many citations to social media, but these issues can be cleaned up without deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many valid references establish notability. Also of note: the nominator has no contributions other than this AfD. See Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice catch re: the nominator. Something seemed fishy about this nomination and a likely SPA fits the bill. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Her leadership as a Director for the American Womens Medical Association board is at the national level, she has significant coverage in many secondary news sources (across many years), many publications, and her visibility and importance regarding the COVID-19 pandemic has been broadly covered. Agree with above that the nomination seems a little targeted and unsure why the user no longer exists on Wikipedia. Microglia145 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: my strong first instinct was to vote Keep, but I'm not sure I can see what notability guideline the subject meets. Seems to be a way off WP:NACADEMIC (perhaps WP:TOOSOON?) and I don't see enough secondary sources to pass WP:GNG: the Time and USA Today profiles mentioned above were written by her, the Stanford profile is specifically alumni coverage, which doesn't really clear the bar, and I don't really see much in the way of sources that give WP:SIGCOV and can be called completely independent of her. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Very weak delete . SPA aside, the article as it stands relies too much on non-independent sources, comes across as somewhat promotional, and sports a CV to boot. But I don't want to overcorrect. While GNG is hard to put together, and ACADEMIC seems unmet, WP:BASIC may still be met if we use and  as a foundation. If we had any further independent sources with SIGCOV, I could be convinced to keep. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think NYT from below gets us to WP:BASIC, tho article still needs some work. &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the two news stories listed by User:Siroxo, I added items from Proquest in which she talks about the US response to COVID and the founding of 500 Women in Medicine, a 2019 news article that talked about her work on gender bias, and a 2021 NYTimes article about medical careers and fertility that includes a section on her . Collectively this sums up to WP:BASIC, though the excessive Twitter references should be trimmed out. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This entire article reads as a vanity article, and a CV. As far as CVs go, it is mildly impressive, but nothing out of the ordinary in medicine. Her top claim to notability - being one of the many current directors of AMWA, is certainly not enough. (Furthermore, there are 17 other members of the current board, and she is not on the executive committee, simply a board member: https://www.amwa-doc.org/about-amwa/leadership/). Additionally, while every academic physician's job is to publish, the subject does not come close to meeting criteria for WP:NACADEMIC either. 192.104.139.5 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that Salles meets WP:NACADEMIC; She meets our criteria for WP:BASIC because she has received coverage in multiple, published secondary sources that are independent of each other and her. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Nominator is evidently using this account just for AFD. They have no contributions other than this AfD which is suspicious. That aside, the article has some sources online. -- Tumbuka Arch  ★★★  11:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment As I noted above, tidying up was needed. Rather than leaving this to another editor, I removed the statements sourced to Twitter. I also removed any statements that I could not verify. DaffodilOcean (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Nominator conflict-of-interest aside, I'm not seeing anything here to meet academic notability nor significant coverage. The list of personal publications is nothing special. Furthermore, the external coverage subject has received is not on a high level either. The article as it stands discusses subject's own education and personal interests, which are adequately sourced, rather than doing anything to establish their actual significance. Also, as stated above, many of these sources were contributed to by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.197.242 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.