Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxana Moslehi

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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)[reply
]

Roxana Moslehi

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

Roxana Moslehi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:BADHAND "inappropriate uses of alternative accounts". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
The creation of
WP:SCRUTINY, so it is against policy. Bondegezou (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm afraid this is not correct. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses. RoxMosDel (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
author metrics
Caption text
Name Professional position PhD grad year Total citing docs # Publications h-index Overall highest cite Highest first-author cite Highest senior-author cite
Roxana Moslehi assoc. prof, SUNY Albany 2000 2421 43 20 559 254 32
Steven Narod TBD TBD 36799 832 120 4916 660 2544
Harvey Risch TBD TBD 15878 172 69 2475 633 633
Anne Dørum TBD TBD 2482 60 22 886 102 46
Susan Neuhausen Morris & Horowitz Families Professor, City of Hope TBD 20919 366 84 4916 242 187
Hakan Olsson TBD TBD 16918 274 63 2475 149 309
Diane Provencher TBD TBD 8662 231 48 1067 120 217
Paolo Radice TBD TBD 13590 320 65 2475 35 171
Gareth Evans Professor? 1992? (MD) 29565 623 110 2475 729 311
Susan Bishop TBD TBD 559 1 1 559 - -
Jean Brunet TBD TBD 3505 45 28 559 113 294
Bruce Ponder Emeritus prof., Cambridge 1978 35021 482 117 2717 461 1621
JGM Klijn TBD TBD 30269 346 91 3601 379 1313
Ilana Cass TBD TBD 2687 71 24 380 380 167
Rae Lynn Baldwin TBD TBD 2365 38 26 380 271 82
Taz Varkey TBD TBD 448 2 2 380 - -
Beth Karlan TBD TBD 26951 471 92 4205 165 380
Ellen Warner TBD TBD 9367 182 42 2475 900 119
William Foulkes TBD TBD 22333 617 94 1948 1948 660
Pamela Goodwin TBD TBD 12538 193 62 1795 697 338
Wendy Meschino TBD TBD 5353 114 37 900 10 53
John Blondal TBD TBD 609 8 7 313 29 -
Colleen Paterson TBD TBD 313 1 1 313 - -
Hilmi Ozcelik TBD TBD 5344 117 43 755 186 130
Paul Goss TBD TBD 19363 304 74 1795 1580 786
Diane Allingham-Hawkins TBD TBD 1135 23 10 376 376 30
Nancy Hamel TBD TBD 3229 75 31 313 64 -
Lisa Di Prospero TBD TBD 766 4 4 386 74 -
Velita Contiga TBD TBD 313 1 1 313 - -
Corrine Serruya TBD TBD 530 4 4 313 - -
Meri Klein TBD TBD 430 2 2 313 - -
Joanne Honeyford TBD TBD 429 6 4 313 - -
Alexander Liede TBD TBD 1973 65 22 319 319 31
Gord Glendon TBD TBD 5268 137 43 716 3 15
Cristy Stagnar TBD TBD 105 9 4 56 - -
Sneha Srinivasan TBD TBD 0 1 0 0 - -
Pawel Radziszowski TBD TBD 0 1 0 0 - -
David Carpenter prof., SUNY Albany 1964 31611 474 66 4142 269 238
Igor Kuznetsov TBD TBD 431 24 10 149 118 149
Michael McDuffie TBD TBD 33 2 1 32 - 1
William Chu TBD TBD 873 10 10 254 28 -
David Fishman TBD TBD 10207 150 54 2734 207 192
Abbie Fields TBD TBD 1401 45 20 254 69 144
David Smotkin TBD TBD 1399 23 16 483 483 17
Yehuda Ben-David TBD TBD 674 25 11 254 24 -
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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • keep per David Eppstein"s coment.Fatzaof (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roxana_Moslehi&oldid=1005864756"