Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Montazeri

Ali Montazeri

Ali Montazeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources in the article are written by the subject, and searching mostly gives sources for the unrelated person Hussein-Ali Montazeri. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable public health figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Google Scholar shows a h-index of 54 and a dozen highly cited papers, suggesting the subject passes WP:PROF#C1. Does need additional independent sources but these are likely to be available, in Persian if not in English. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC).
• Keep -- Prof#C1 must be there for a reason, and this article passes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• delete yes he has published, but there is a paucity of sources about him with which to craft an NPOV article. To folks making !votes that just cite "WP:Prof#C1 and the like, please actually read the guideline. None of those are automatic "passes" to N and there are no independent RS for the basic facts here. The current aritcle is just a puff piece advertising how great he is, created by a SPA (contribs). Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

there are 11466 sources about his work on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

by "GS" I assume you mean "Google scholar" and if so, what you wrote is meaningless and i am sorry to say incompetent.Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

(edit conflict) That's uncalled for. Maybe you misunderstood what Xxanthippe was saying? Each of the papers that cite Montazeri are independent reliable sources that discuss his work, at least in a small way. Google Scholar (GS) gives us a good estimate of how many there are: 11466. Clearly then, there are plenty of sources for writing about Montazeri's work, even if we don't have many sources about him. Making this assessment is exactly why WP:PROF exists – and I can assure you that everybody in this discussion, being regulars at academic AfDs, has "actually read" the guideline. There is also the fact that it would be very unusual for an academic of Montazeri's standing not to have been the subject of biographical publications in his own country, although unfortunately nobody with the language skills to verify that is available. In other words, the current article may not be well written or well sourced, but sources are definitely available, so we can get there eventually. – Joe (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Google scholar does not separately count citations. Also incompetent. Please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers and also Google_Scholar#Limitations_and_criticism. It includes lots of garbage and dupes and is game-able. The raw number is meaningless.Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The more conservative citation metrics reported by Scopus (5484, h-index 41) and Web of Science (1776, h-index 20) also show that the subject is a highly-cited researcher. In my mind there's no doubt that he has made a significant impact in his field, passing WP:PROF#C1, and you haven't really offered an argument to the contrary, only repeatedly attacked our competence. – Joe (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at a more reasonable citation source. With regard to the putative lack of reason from my side, I said that there are insufficient sources about this person to create a well-sourced NPOV article about him. Which you have not addressed. Instead of actually working on the article you think is keep-able, you are wasting time making checkbox arguments that really don't mean anything, exactly per PROF. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. I know too little about Iranian academia to find other aspects of notability for him (for instance I don't know whether his being editor-in-chief of IJPHSD should count for #C8), and searches are made more difficult by the similarity of names to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, but it seems likely that they also exist for those who can read Farsi. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• comment - I encourage folks who are !voting keep to spend some time and try to make an NPOV, well-sourced article about this person, instead of making abstract claims. Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Prof gives a useful guide to evaluating the notability of academics/scholars/researchers. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

That has nothing to do with what I wrote, and additionally no guideline including PROF offers an automatic green light. We need to be able to write an NPOV, well sourced encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog Your approach to Wikipedia editing can be seen on your user page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC).

Yes, I describe it there: User:Jytdog. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems that your views on Wikipedia editing are outside consensus. It might be better get your views agreed to on policy pages before attempting to impose them on individual AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

• I went over the article carefully and removed a boatload of unsourced promotional content like:
  • "Since his graduation from University of Glasgow, he has introduced the topic to the Iranian academic community and developed several internationally known instruments for measuring health and patient-reported outcome in Iran. He is the pioneer of this topic in Iran and is a well-recognized scientist internationally for his works in this field."
  • "Montazeri is among few investigators who for the first time proved that health-related quality of life is a prognostic factor for cancer survival."
  • "Montazeri made a substantial contribution to breast cancer prevention in Iran."
  • "(his publications) are considered an asset for the country. He has published more than any investigator on breast cancer in Iran."
    • Let me just repeat that one again: "(his publications) are considered an asset for the country. " (????)
  • "His bibliographic review of the literature on the quality of life in breast cancer patients from 1974 to 2007 is one of the most comprehensive existing piece of evidence that covers all aspects of breast cancer treatment and quality of life."

I looked for independent sources about him and found none - i used his linkedin profile and CV to be able to write something but these are both SPS. I did find that someone posted an identical article on another wiki, here. There appears to be a full-court promotional press going on for this guy.

The article as it stands is SPS + a description of a few of his papers. This is completely invalid; a pubmed search shows he has 308 papers. The papers that are described in the article now appear to be randomly chosen; shall we describe all 308? If not, what is the basis for choosing these? ack.

Again there are insufficient secondary sources about him with which to generate an NPOV, well-sourced article. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delete on second thoughts; Jytdog's arguments are convincing, while a promotional campaign is a concern. Overall, this appears to be the case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to recreation if can be done with reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

How can you say that a BLP with a GS h-index of 54 is "Too soon"? How big would it have to be to satisfy you that it was not "Too soon"? I note that promotional material has been removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

WP is not some directory where meeting some criteria gets you "in". (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) In other words, there is no such thing as automatic notability; there have to actually be independent reliable sources with which to build an actual article. We have to write articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment the raw number of citations does not show influence on the profession, and neither does the h index. What shows an influence in the subject is highly cited papers, not the total, not the average. No amount of low quality or mediocre work gives influence,only really important work will do it. And even an isolated single highly cited paper does not necessarily show influential work, because the person might have been a junior author as a student. There is no mechanical way of judging citations. And as far as absolute numbers go, it's entirely field dependent. a paper with 50 citations is important in mathematics, and trivial in biomedicine. It's also chronology-dependent: a paper with 100 citations in biomedicine was very significant indeed 40 years ago, but considerably less significant now. The only way an argument based on them can be valid is if it represents an intelligent summary of the citation record.

there have, btw, been several studies of the relation of GS counts to WOS and Scopus, and they have all shown that in most fields, the GS figure is twice the others, but the pattern is otherwise the same. WOS remains the gold standard in fields where it applies, but GS is an adequate surrogate. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Keep In this particular case, examining the citation and the papers, he is the senior author of several important surveys which have been widely cited: 714, 515, 375, 299, 247, 263, 256, (25 papers with over 100 citations each) This is enough to show that he is an expert in his primary field, which is cancer epidemiology in Iran, and to a considerable extent the broader field of Iran epidemiology. The current version, thanks to the excellent editing of Jytdog, is no longer promotional -- it was a matter of removing adjectives and evaluative statements--the facts speak for themselves in showing notability , as they ought to. Thew point of WP:PROF is that secondary information about his work is unnecessary as long as the properly analyzed statistics show the notability . WP:PROF is not a supplement to the GNG, and not a matter of presumed notability -- it's explictly an alternative. True, among the many papers cited it we could find 3rd party evaluations of the work--this would add to the article, but it isn't necessary in order to keep it. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So interesting. This "article" is a piece of shit even after my efforts; all i did was polish a turd. There is nothing we can say about this person, as we have no sources to summarize. I do not understand the !keep votes, at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)