Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharam Ablashi


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Dharam Ablashi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After trimming of the overly promotional content, there's not much left that isn't based on sources published by the subject or closely affiliated ones. A search doesn't reveal much further (social media sites, one interview, publications/patents/...). Fails WP:GNG. If the HHV-6 Foundation was notable enough, this could maybe be redirected there. Since that is not the case, there's a clear case for deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof as-coauthor of 19 papers with over 100 cites each, albeit in a highly cited field. I cannot understand why the nominator expected to find anything about a biomedical researcher on social media sites. If he had, would this have improved notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC).
 * This doesn't absolve him from being covered in secondary, independent sources. If there's nothing in secondary sources, well, then, I beg to differ, WP:NPROF is irrelevant, since there's no justification for basing an article entirely on primary sources, no matter how "well-cited" some of the subject's papers might be. That's also what the criteria says, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." No independent reliable sources = no article. As simple as that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The citation record (that is, the body of citing papers) comprises thousands of independent reliable sources for WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A scholar having their works cited by peers in their discipline is run of the mill. The vast majority of citations are not WP:SIGCOV of the author of the paper in question. If there are no independent sources to provide encyclopedic coverage about the article subject (such as biographic details and the like), then that's all very nice, but the article fails WP:V and probably WP:NOR due to being based solely on primary, self-published sources for its content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A scholar having citations at this level may not be run of the mill. WP:NPROF is independent of GNG, and explicitly states that it is an alternative.  I agree that the article is undersourced and overly based on primary sources, but WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * DINC, yes, but it's not that I didn't try, I just couldn't find non-primary sources, so while NPROF might be independent of GNG ([insert rant about SNGs, and in particular ones like this one which seemingly allow articles written solely on primary sources]), so this would still fail core policies regarding sourcing, and given it's a WP:BLP, we should be more strict about sourcing than just allowing self-published sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * NPROF was written explicitly to allow articles on important academics who wouldn't otherwise have the SIGCOV in IRS necessary for GNG. In my opinion the criteria are too permissive (most editors' perceptions of what a "high" citation profile is in any given field are several standard deviations below the actual median, so low-impact scholars slip through all the time), but that's just what we have to work with until more people agitate for change. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, I agree with Xxanthippe that the citation record satisfies NPROF-1.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 11:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While the subject is highly cited, on most of the highly-cited work he is middle author on a highly coauthored paper (in a field where order matters).  I see several papers with high citations on which he is first/last author, however; and the higher-cited middle author papers do not detract. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's sufficiently above the average in his field. I looked at the Scopus metrics of the 101 coauthors (with 20+ papers) on his 35 most recent papers. Total citations: average: 7303, median: 3380, Ablashi: 9856. Total papers: avg: 160, med: 96, A: 275. h-index: avg: 36, med: 31, A: 50. Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 652, med: 414, A: 1165. 2nd: avg: 370, med: 235, A: 307. 3rd: avg: 293, med: 207, A: 271. 4th: avg: 247, med: 193, A: 250. 5th: avg: 209, med: 136, A: 247. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * weak Keep. per WP:PROF#1 he passes the bar but as Russ mentioned, he is mainly co-author on important papers. --hroest 18:26, 12 August 2021 (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.