Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masoud Salavati-Niasari

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Salavati-Niasari

[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)

Nominated per WP:NACADEMIC, some relevant information will follow in the comment below. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a scholar in the field of chemistry / chemical engineering with excessive publication output (1084 items per Dimensions.ai, link requires login).

There is a retraction for image concerns. 36 articles by Salavati-Niasari received comments on PubPeer, typically for image and content concerns. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, none of these asserts notability. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not going to support this BLP until an explanation is available for the unusual GS citation record and the retractions Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@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. KoA (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to proceed with deletion at this time. One retraction is quite weak to imply notability / notoriety of the subject, and references to their PubPeer record are contestable through WP:NOR.

If any significant number of retractions arrives in the future, then we will have a firm reason to restore the page. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An academic scandal (falsified data, plagiarism, etc.) only contributes to notability in the Wikipedian sense of the word if that scandal has been covered by reliable sources. Think The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retraction Watch, the news sections of Science and Nature, and other sources of that type. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 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. KoA (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few years there has been a vast increase in citation gaming, see Research paper mill, which tends to bamboozle inexperienced editors. If in doubt Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. When there appears to be legitimate reason to call into question the subject's citation record, I think we must avoid reliance on WP:PROF#C1 as a notability criterion, but we have nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with others, his citation record does not look right. If there was cross-validation by awards from his peers then I would be OK with the page. If such a high citation record was an accurate reflection then there would be many. The lack says everything to me. So delete as there are too many unresolved questions, as others say above. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (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.