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 no consensus. ansh666 05:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morvarid Karimi[edit]

Morvarid Karimi (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)

Deceased 45 year old assistant professor,WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Seems to be mainly sourced from obits. BEFORE doesn't show much more than obits in terms of coverage of her. She does however have a number of publications in peer-reviewed journals which per my assessment do not rise to WP:NPROF (but kept me from PRODing). Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I cut a bunch of obituary language so that the page at least reads more like an encyclopedia article. This is not a decision to !vote either way. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lack of secondary sources is disappointing, but the long list of scholarly publications makes it abundantly clear that this is someone who made a significant contribution to her field. Also, she was an assistant professor for 6 years, i.e. 6 years as a professional academic, and her institution Washington University School of Medicine is ranked 7th[1] in the research rankings of US medical schools.
  If Karimi had been a footballer, then per WP:NFOOTY the notability threshold would have been passed as soon as she had served even a few minutes as a professional academic at any university. In football terms, Karimi basically did 6 years in the premier league ... but because she was an academic rather than a a footballer, we are discussing her deletion. This is systemic bias in action: editors are being asked to assess this deletion proposal against a framework which is blatantly rigged in favour of popular culture, and rigged against the people who analyse and shape our world. So keep Karimi, because per WP:ABOUT, this is an encyclopedia; it is not, as NFOOTY implies, a fanzine where commercial sports get priority over scholars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: - actually PROF is quite lenient in terms of granting notability to academics with no sourcing covering them (beyond their body of work and positions) - opening an additional avenue besides GNG which may also grant notability. This individual is not close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria (the most relevant here would be NPROF 1 and 4 - widely cited journal papers or widely used textbooks). Granting notability to every assistant professor at a major top ranked institution would significantly widen the scope of NPROF (or narrow NFOOTY) and should be advanced in the guideline documentation - not in an individual AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Icewhiz: pendinq some consensus on how to resolve the notability guidelines' massive and blatant bias against in favour of sports, I see no policy reason to subject an academic to tests which would not be applied to kickers of an inflated leather pouch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note NPROF already counters sysyemic bias by confering notability where GNG does not. The arguement NFOOTY is too inclusive (I think the rationale there is due to footballers appearing in stats and game reports in media - which would typically mean coverage in a few newspapers per game at least) should be taken up with sports and gossip editors in the media (which confer SIGCOV on these individuals regardless of NFOOTY which just creates a presumption of notability), and at the relevant policy pages (or the village pump?) - not in an individual AfD on a non-football subject.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Icewhiz: the media does what it does, and as I'm sure you guessed, I'm not interested in discussions with thousands of sports desks. NFOOTY is in practice used to keep footballers even when exhaustive checking shows that there is nothing on them beyond stats entries or a squad listing. Yes, in theory it's a rebuttable presumption ... but in practice it's an exemption from the SIGCOV requirement.
  And there's not much point discussing NFOOTY , 'cos the sports fans who dominate en.wp's editorial demographic turn up in enough numbers to protect their loophole. So best to just apply the same logic to more encyclopedic topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Meets neither WP:PROF nor the GNG. No particularly significant publications, and all of them in large groups of which she was a junior member. Additionally, the overpersonal tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article--even after the editing. . I don't see what NSPORTS has to do with the issue. In practice, we have different standards in different fields. "Professional" does not mean the same thing, either: any physician is a professional, most people who play football are amateurs. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NEXIST given the number of published works in peer-reviewed academic journals. Lonehexagon (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Publishing your own work (in this case as a junior co-author mostly) does not satisfy NEXIST - a subject writing on other subjects is not writing about the subject itself, and in any event would be a WP:SELFSOURCE even if it were to contain tangential information on the subject. WP:PROF does provide an avenue, mainly based on being widely cited, for notability based on publications in academic journals (and elsewhere) - with the premise being that if a subject is cited pervasively, then the subject itself has become notable. In this particular case, the subject's work is not cited with great frequency.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 14 February 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.