Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxana Moslehi (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Roxana Moslehi
AfDs for this article:


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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Plandu (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Plandu (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Iran, Canada,  and New York. TJMSmith (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needs some work but I see healthy citations for an Associate professor with 8 or more publications with 100+ citations. I dont think the awards are significant enough but the citations look healthy enough to pass WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 14:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I see the article was last nominated in 2021 and the decision was to keep the article, what has changed since then exactly? --hroest 20:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The tone was promotional (and had been for a while), it contained solely journal articles and primary sources as citations without any secondary sources, and a lot of work on it was done by someone who seemed to have a connection to the subject. All of that made it seem like a vanity entry. If she has enough citations to pass WP:NPROF, that's fine.
 * Thanks to David Eppstein for cleaning it up. Plandu (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. I trimmed down the article by what can be supported by its sources and, as a result of looking deeper, my weak keep from the first AfD has become weaker. She does have two first-author papers with triple-digit citations, but they're from 2000 and 2006. She seems to be stuck at the associate professor level. We're not citing any of her works in other Wikipedia articles, so losing this one would not create any holes elsewhere. But I did at least find one recent local newspaper story with in-depth coverage of her research (and some background about her), which saves the article from being entirely primarily sourced and keeps me on the keep side of the fence. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking at the citations from GS, excluding the highly multi-authored except where the subject is first author, the top citns are 578,373,195,191,74 (two of which she is first author on), which meets my understanding of WP:PROF even in a fairly high citation field. She's also been associated with some very highly cited large-team work on cancer, which does not diminish her notability, even if we tend to discount it. Thanks to David Eppstein for cleaning the article up and uncovering the newspaper coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as she exists in Google Trends had have publications in academic journals. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:44, 12 November 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.