Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imran Sharief


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Imran Sharief

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

The article was draftified and moved again back to mainspace. I suppose one option is to draftify it again but I don't think we can avoid the notability issue. This is a pulmonologist who's been interviewed by FoxNews (at the height of the COVID epidemic) but that doesn't result in in-depth coverage. There's no indication that he meets WP:PROF either. Pichpich (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators,  and California. Pichpich (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: A scientist who publishes, and reviews other's work, not terribly notable. That's what a scientist dies. I can't find mentions other than in the Daily Mail. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - originally created with junk advertorials, paid placement, and the Daily Mail. Could not find anything else in a search; just directory listings and more SEO. Note, the last source is garbage; it seems to be some kind of essay that alludes to sleep centers in general, and ties them to this physician - not clear on the "CEO" claim. Regardless, not notable in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. For possible WP:NPROF C1 notability, I see two highly-cited papers, but one is also highly co-authored.  I don't think it is enough in a medium-high citation field, and the citation counts tail off quickly.  I agree that the Fox news human-interest story does not contribute much to notability, and I don't see much else. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears you're describing a scientist who conducts research, publishes papers, and also participates in peer review, but may not have achieved significant recognition. Their contributions might be less widely known or celebrated in the scientific community. This is not uncommon, as not every scientist attains high levels of fame or prominence. -- Jasulan .T  TT me 14:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Assistant Profs are generally not notable and the GS doesnt indicate passing WP:NPROF#1, the highest cited first author paper has 33 citations. Maybe a case of WP:TOOEARLY. --hroest 18:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, leaning Delete. I'm not sure we should decide on the assistant professor, as medical professionals often have primary appointments in hospitals, not universities. The GS profile shows three highly or moderately cited papers in a high-citation field but then a sharp drop off (473,406,195,53,33), and as previous commenters have noted, they have lots of co-authors. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:31, 10 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.