Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davor Pavlovic


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Davor Pavlovic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an autobiography. All the sources cited are books by the author/subject of the article. I cant find any reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, sources are reliable. I agree that the article should be updated so as to highlight the contribution of others. Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Aliceswift1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What the nom meant was that there are no secondary sources. Every single reference was authored, in part, by the subject, so they are not independent. Agricola44 (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The PNAS article from 2003 (currently reference 3) has been cited about 200 times (Web of Science, almost 350 on GScholar). However, that is the only paper that made some impact. Pavlovic's GS profile indicates a grand total of 448 citations (including that PNAS article...) for an h-index of 6. too early, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Academic criteria WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. In fact both criteria 1 and criteria 2 are met:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. -PNAS paper has received over 340 citations [] and it has only been published in 2003, I would say that is quite an impact in its scholarly discipline. To put that into context, 2013 nobel laureate RW Schekman has 371 citations for his most cited 1992 Cell paper []. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. - evidenced by the award from European Society of Cardiology in 2013 []. Musgrave james (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Musgrave james (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as above. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep should be kept but heavily moderated. I propose excluding some of the personal information such as scholarship and smaller studies such as Glycobiology journal study as that journal has relatively low impact factor. However, the PNAS article has a very high citation number and and for this alone author contribution is worth keeping. Musgrave james (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Musgrave james has attempted to interfere with this discussion by removing tags and has been warned by another ed. Agricola44 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Delete. The text of the article with respect to the p7 discovery published in PNAS is very misleading. It implies Pavlovic made the discovery independently, whereas he was actually a grad student. With rare exception in life science doctoral programs, it is the lab PI who directs the work and who is credited with discovery, as evidenced by having "senior authorship" on the paper (as is the case here). The subject has not yet established an independent scientific reputation – WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
 * I agree that too much emphasis is put on the discovery of p7 although I would not call it misleading. I have modified the article so as to highlight the contribution of others. Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

— Aliceswift1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Andrewpolic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. I don't think one well-cited student paper and not much else should be good enough for WP:PROF, in part because it's too difficult to tell how much credit is due to the student and how much to his or her advisor. WP:BIO1E also seems relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. All multi-author scientific studies suffer from the same problem, i.e. who is credited with the discovery. Nevertheless, scientific output following on from the PNAS paper is by no means negligible. Aliceswift1998 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks to me like the article is now acceptable. References are reliable sources of information i.e. scientific journals. It is not an orphan article anymore.  Andrewpolic (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. More WP:SOCKS are now attempting to interfere. The commentator(s) should please be aware that this behavior is almost always counter-productive. The best way to save the article is to find sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2014 (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.