Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eran Elhaik


 * 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. rough consensus is that WP:NPROF has been met, AFD is not cleanup and a messy page is not a reason for deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Eran Elhaik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My concerns are a lack of notability from RS - there are far too many primary sources here. If not deletion which I think is most possible - I think WP:TNT would be in better order. The fact that a SPA wrote the majority of this page makes me wary. Sgerbic (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:PROF and heavily cited publications on Google Scholar . Article appears factual and not excessively promotional to me. And he has significant international news coverage for his work   The facts that the article appears to have come under attack by SPA Elbeavo long after its creation, and has recently been tag-bombed by Ixocactus, are also not reasons for deletion. I am suspicious that his research is unwelcome to some ears for reasons unrelated to whether or not it is valid scientifically (about which I have no informed opinion). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Unwellcomed tags can be removed David. Be bold. On Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry I discovered some sources about the Elhaik's work. I noticed this guy because his controversial methods are noticed in a recent book marketed in Brazil by churnalism pieces and mocking memes. I finded only one analytical approach in "Erased blacks and indians: study angers scientists linking cearense to viking". According geneticists and historians the book uses genetics to support old antiscientific racist theories. Ixocactus (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether his work in genetics mirrors old theories based in racism is irrelevant. Whether it is scientifically valid, only coincidentally prefigured by the racists, and attacked by people who don't like to be told that their origin myths are inaccurate, or whether it pure crankery motivated in racism itself, is also not very relevant to this discussion (although of course it is relevant to how we frame his work in the article). What is relevant is how widely noted his work is. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The highly cited publications on Google Scholar look to have 40+ authors!  Excluding papers with extremely high numbers of authors, there's one with a mere 6 authors and 472 citations; after that, it's 72 citations.  There is a case for WP:NPROF C1, but it is much weaker than it first appears. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I stumbled across this page and the article for deletion discussion. It seems that this article is a very poor stub. Wikipedia articles are supposed to give information in a format that most readers can understand and I couldn't follow the research section because of the unlinked jargon. Either this section has to go (and then the whole page should go) or the article could be saved if it was re-written or even if the research section was re-written to be understandable. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Subject appears to be notable under WP:NPROF, though as Russ Woodroofe noted need to watch out for multiple authors, but there are also the sources that David Eppstein found too to show notability. The article itself isn't great though, but AfD is not cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, esp. per David Eppstein's outline of the issues. He has a very strong index for scholarly productivity (See the google scholar citational index linked at the bottom of his page), regardless of the specific controversy (poorly represented on Wikipedia, since his thought has evidently, as one would expect from a scientist, grown more nuanced as new research alters perspectives). One should be particularly wary of claims of non-notability being pushed when the work of the subject in question has been greeted in some quarters by politicized mockery and amateurish journalism by people unqualified to judge extremely complex technical papers.  Nishidani (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2020 (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.