Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasan Adibi (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 delete. Enigma^msg 21:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasan Adibi[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An early career researcher in mobile health, most of whose claims of notability at this stage are short of the specific criteria at WP:NPROF. If there is one direction where notability can be sought, this is in the impact that their research has had on the academic discipline. This is difficult to evaluate, but some hints can be gleaned from their citation count [1]: at 1011 this is relatively high, but – even if we ignore the fact that almost a third of the citations are to a co-authored survey paper – for such an apparently trendy area, this is not high enough by itself to confer notability. The article was previously deleted (after a discussion from 2014), and the notability was briefly discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators#Sasan Adibi and at Talk:Sasan Adibi#Contested deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG, it was deleted back in 2014, and there doesn't appear to be anything new which should alter that result. As Uanfala has pointed out, the citation count is marginal, with the single largest, and only really significant count of 318 was for a multi-authored paper, and add to that the lack of prominent academic positions, they fail WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt blatantly promotional. The long list of EL is a tell. Please remove this pollution from mainspace with alacrity. Given that this is the second time we have shovelled out the trash on this topic, please salt. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's appropriate to salt an article just because it was re-created once, a couple years after the first deletion. Also, this is an early career academic, so notability can change in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.