Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viken Babikian


 * 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. Notable. Needs improvement, not deletion. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Viken Babikian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I notice that the nominator doesn't describe the steps he took to determine that this subject is non-notable, but I'm wondering if that included checking citation counts. I'm seeing more than a page of triple-digit-cited articles in Google Scholar (though he doesn't appear to have a GS profile). Even for clinical medicine, I think this should get him over the bar. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He is a living person. There needs to be external references. Rathfelder (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you indicating that you are going to close this in lieu of a BLP PROD? EricEnfermero (Talk) 19:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPPRIMARY Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Eric based on Notability_(academics). Citation count is sufficient in this case.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, passes WP:PROF. Yet another nomination based on 's misinterpretation of the BLP policy. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Biographies of living persons policies apply just as much to eminent doctors as to anyone else. Rathfelder (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please quote the section of WP:BLP that you think supports this rash of nominations of notable people? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No original research (NOR)  "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." The articles I have nominated have no secondary sources at all. Rathfelder (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Verifiability (V)
 * Keep. Subject has been demonstrated to pass WP:PROF. If the sources that establish notability are not in the article yet, Rathfelder is invited to add them, as AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 10 November 2017 (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.