Content deleted Content added
Line 12: *<small>'''Automated comment:''' This AfD was not correctly [[WP:TRANSCLUDE|transcluded]] to the log ([[WP:AFDHOWTO|step 3]]). I have transcluded it to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 26]]. —[[User:Cyberbot I|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot I</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot I|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)</small><!--Cyberbot I relist--> *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators|Academics and educators]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|Science]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology|Technology]], and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iran|Iran]]. '''[[User:Wcquidditch|<span style="color:red">WC</span>''<span style="color:#999933">Quidditch</span>'']]''' [[User talk:Wcquidditch|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]] [[Special:Contribs/Wcquidditch|<span style="color:#999933">✎</span>]] 00:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)</small> *''' *:@[[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]], I'd be curious what you make of what I found below in academic databases. This is definitely an odd situation outside the "norm" of already iffy measures of notability by citation metrics, but I just get more questions than answers as I dig. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC) * '''Comment''': It seems to me that the subject has notability, albeit not verified by the references. If they have somehow falsified data (etc) and thus retracted papers, then that fact, if in sufficient volume, is likely to confer notability, also notoriety. This should be recorded in the very stubby article. Otherwise their papers appear at first sight to have sufficient citations themselves to qualify under [[WP:NACADEMIC]]. I note the comments in the link provided by the nom, and feel they may indicate 'lack of scientific rigour'. I leave this as a comment rather than a !vote because I do not feel able to reach a conclusion on this. 🇺🇦 [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]] [[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk to me</small></sup>]] 🇺🇦 07:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Line 19: *'''Comment'''. I'm seeing a red flag with the citation counts here too and tried to do some poking around on more reliable databases like Scopus or Web of Science. At their peak, they somehow put out over 100 papers in a single year. In Scopus you can remove self-citations by the author and their co-authors, and this often removes about 1000 citations per year. There still appears to be citations that fall outside this category, but it does play a part. :What's a bigger red flag for me is that they are last/corresponding author on 84% of papers, but first author only on 16% of papers checking Web of Science (apparently never a regular co-author/contributor). Maybe it's an irregular power structure thing at their university, but claiming corresponding editor on that many papers seems to suggest they are getting credit for work they didn't directly do beyond a typical corresponding author situation. At least in this case, I would say the citation metrics part of [[WP:NACADEMIC]] is not reliable standalone for notability, so I'd be inclined to say delete considering everything else I've seen here. [[User:KoA|KoA]] ([[User talk:KoA|talk]]) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC) ::In the last few years there has been a vast increase in citation gaming: see [[Research paper mill]]. If in doubt Delete. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC). | |||