Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradi Mirmirani

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. consensus that the individual meets WP:PROF. JForget 14:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paradi Mirmirani

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. The record is not bad, with one well cited article ([1]), but a relatively low h-index of 9. But I think passes WP:BIO based on past news coverage ([2]) of her research on hair growth.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her record in the medical literature is not impressive, but the number of times she is quoted in lay publications establishes her as notable - basically a go-to expert in the field of hair disorders. I wikified the article a little. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't forget, that in order for a biography to exist, the sources must provide information about the person, not what she's famous for. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That seems a rather obscure (not to say unintelligible) distinction. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then we'll have a one-sentence "bio" that just says what she's famous for, based on reliable sources, with no other information. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is erroneous. It is what a person is famous for that makes them notable. See WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

But we cannot include any information that is not sourced to reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources from which to write a bio, then what else can we write about, than what the person is famous for, in which case we have a news report, and not a biography. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is impressive and notable the many times her opinion has been noted in non-medical media. Inniverse (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2010 (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.