Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soodabeh Davaran

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soodabeh Davaran

[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)

This is a deletion request filed on behalf of the subject who has contacted us via VTRS 2025011410006473. Professor Davaran states "The page contains inaccurate information that could harm my reputation. By Wikipedia’s policies and my right to control my personal information, I kindly request the page's removal."

I am satisfied that the request received is from the subject. Nthep (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal notability as WP:NPROF. The lead and infobox both focus on a number of retracted papers, which I presume is what upsets the subject. pburka (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- might pass the WP:PROF notability guideline, might not, that doesn't really matter: the request is from the subject and is reasonable given she is not a public figure of clear notable standing. The overriding focus on retracted papers without evidence that they were retracted for newsworthy reasons reads almost like an attack page. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because of the high number of retracted papers, I think that trying to rely on WP:PROF#C1 for notability would be problematic, and there seems to be no other positive claim for notability that would meet our standards. As for the retractions: the subject does appear to have them, but I see no evidence that they are notable for having multiple retracted papers and my searches did not find any. There are other sites devoted to publicizing retractions and the academic misconduct that some retractions are associated with (notably Retraction Watch); that is not the purpose of Wikipedia and the mere existence of many retractions does not make for notability. Indeed, while the negative information about the subject may be accurate, collecting it in this way without basing it on sources that publish similar collections creates the appearance of WP:SYN and of an attack page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the subject’s request for page deletion. Professor Soodabeh Davaran has highlighted valid concerns regarding the accuracy and neutrality of the information presented on this page. The current content disproportionately emphasizes retracted papers without providing proper context or notable, balanced information about her broader academic contributions. This imbalance creates the appearance of an attack page, as noted by others in this discussion.

Furthermore, as Professor Davaran herself is not a widely recognized public figure under Wikipedia’s notability standards (e.g., WP:NPROF), her request for removal aligns with her right to safeguard her professional reputation. Wikipedia should prioritize neutrality and fairness, avoiding the appearance of bias or harm to individuals without clear public interest.

Given the lack of independent, reliable sources establishing the subject’s notability or the significance of the retractions, retaining this page is not in line with Wikipedia’s purpose. I respectfully request that the page be removed to prevent further harm and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Ali.ghodrati20 (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the professor test and while apparently true is just not what we do. I find it ironic, and I am reminded of an AfD from 2007 when an otherwise non-notable school administrator was upset about the truthful news coverage he'd received, so he complained to the management. Bearian (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of cites in a high-cited field but retractions nullify this. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2025 (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.