Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxana Moslehi


 * 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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Roxana Moslehi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The page does not contain any external sources that is not a peer-reviewed article by the same scholar. There seems to be no notability according to WP:PROF. RoxMosDel (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete She hasn't achieved anything beyond what a normal scientist in her field would do. The "awards" she has aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. She has some highly-cited research, including first-authored papers with Google Scholar citation counts 325, 163, 59, 46, ... and several others with even more citations on which she was not first author. The article is puffed up with minor and non-notable accomplishments and badly-sourced evaluations of her work, and it could use being severely trimmed back, but I think this is enough for a borderline pass of WP:PROF. I note also that the nominator is a WP:SPA whose login (judging from its name) seems to have been created for the sole purpose of hiding the identity of a more-experienced editor (one who at least is familiar with our academic notability guidelines, not true of most new editors); to me that looks like a likely case of WP:BADHAND "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. The number of citations, particularly considering how variable the ranges are from field to field has never been a criterion for notability inside/outside of Wikipedia. And yes, you are right, I'm an experienced user and for obvious reasons decided to make this suggestion using a temporary username, which is not against policies. But please let's focus on the topic of the discussion and not my identity. Please also note nomination for deletion is not vandalism (per definition of badhand)RoxMosDel (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The creation of does appear to be a violation of WP:SCRUTINY, so it is against policy. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is not correct. See Sockpuppetry. RoxMosDel (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as per David Eppstein. I'm also not sure if the COI tag on the page is actually justified. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. So my new method of analyzing notability in a way that normalizes to subfield is to look at a few credential parameters in both the subject and their coauthors using Scopus. This allows people in very low-cited topics a better chance of gaining NPROF C1, and mediates the appearance of high citation counts for people who publish in extremely high-citation/publication subfields. I look at the subject's and their coauthors' current professional position, PhD graduation year, total number of citing documents (slightly different from total cites), number of publications, h-index, and cite count of highest-cited paper overall, as first author, and as senior (last) author. I'll fill in the position and PhD year at a later point, but here are Dr. Moslehi's coauthors from her 3 highest-cited papers (1, 2, 3), her most recent paper (3), highest-cited first-author paper (4), and highest-cited last-author paper (5). I've bolded the people with much better credentials and italicized those who are comparably-credentialed.


 * From these numbers, it appears her subfield has exceptionally high publication rates and citations. Among all her coauthors, including those who are undergrads with 1 paper, the (median, average, Dr. Moslehi; italicized when comparable, bold when much higher) for each of the parameters is: total citing docs: (2482, 8557, 2421); total pubs: (60, 155, 43); h-index: (24, 37, 20); citation of highest cited papers: overall: (559, 1268, 559), first-author: (118, 268, 254), last-author: (53, 249, 32). Among coauthors with 10 or more pubs: (7008, 11892, 2421); (144, 217, 43); (43, 51, 20); (984, 1680, 559); (248, 374, 254); (169, 350, 32). Considering only NPROF C1, based on these metrics, I would lean towards delete (not a !vote), as she does not appear to be highly cited in her field. If she has considerable independent media references she might just meet other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep per, whom I trust on these issues. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As per all above and as explained by David Eppstein. Akronowner (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock. MER-C 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * keep The author seems to have at least 2-3000 citations from a quick sum up from the first page of the google scholar results https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Roxana+Moslehi&btnG=, so this likely meets WP:PROF. Some articles (including first authored) have several hundred citations which is a clear sign of impact. Lainx (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lainx, do you consider every professor in any field who has 2–3000 citations notable? I've only recently started voting in academic AfDs, but from assessing citation counts and h-indices using Scopus it's become very clear that subfields differ enormously in the typical values for those metrics. For example, in pure math 250 citing docs and an h-index of 9 can be notable, but there are also fields where the average post-doc with 5+ years working can have like 3000 citations and an h-index of 25. Surely different criteria should be used depending on the subfield? JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * keep per David Eppstein"s coment.Fatzaof (talk) 14:02, 5 February 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.