Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Abkar

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. David Eppstein and DGG have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abkar

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

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

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources Persia ☘ 21:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep, nominator's argument is flawed. Clearly meets
  WP:NACADEMIC, which has not been addressed. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Respected teacher but from what I saw in the article and my own research, article doesn't pass GNG so delete --Mardetanha (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.per nom.Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think the citation record is a marginal pass of
  WP:NPROF C3, if it could be supported with a reliable source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm sufficient convinced by David Eppstein's point that the subject is in a higher citation area of a low-citation field (well, and also the point regarding the Iranian Academy of Literature) to strike my !vote. OTOH, language and other difficulties make it more difficult to find sourcing on people from Iran, and the subject is close enough to the notability bar that I don't have the confidence to replace at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Leaning “Keep”. Not clear that he is a clear pass on any NPROF single criteria, but he is close in several. H-index (22) is low, but 12 first-authored publications with 23 - 134 is pretty good. Having been Dean is pretty good. I think some leeway is also suitable non non-western academics, to counter strong US systematic bias. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He has a successful academic career, obviously, but nothing is standing out to me. Mathematics is a low-citation field, but to me the implication of that is that we have less ability to use
  WP:PROF#C1 for many mathematicians; I don't think it's a good idea to calibrate our expectations for citations too far downward, because when the numbers get smaller they also get noisier. In any case, his top-cited work is in the Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications which covers a higher-citation subtopic of mathematics. So although two papers with three-digit citations is good, I'm not entirely convinced that it's good enough. The "Young Mathematicians Prize of 2003" is a national-level award, but for a junior researcher, not quite enough to convince me of #C2. Membership in the "Mathematics group of Iranian Academy of Literature" sounds on the face of it like something that could pass #C3, but on his home page [1] he lists this as a form of editorial work, not as an honor or selective society membership. Dean is a high administrative position, but not enough for #C6. Membership in editorial board is not enough for #C8. So while he comes close in many criteria, I don't think there's anything that pushes him over the top. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak deleteI had never thought of dealing with the low citations in math the way DavidE suggests, but it makes a great deal of sense and should clarifgy discussions in this field and probably other low-citation fields. . Loooking at other factors, Dean of faculty is a seond or third-level position at most universities, and he not editor in chief of a journal, but a member ofc the editorial board. Comparatively, checking the catogory for Iranian mathematicians, the otherr in that category are consideraably more notable--some even famous. -- DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He has over 960 citations on Google Scholar so he meets
  WP:ACADEMIC. Added couple of his publications. Chelokabob (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What in WP:ACADEMIC makes you think that 960 citations means he meets it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2021 (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.