Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehrdad Nikoonahad

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. Honestly, no point in keeping this going further. DS (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Mehrdad Nikoonahad

[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)

Can't find a thing suggesting notability. E Eng 12:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourced evidence of meeting relevant notability criteria provided in the article, and a search turns up nothing of consequence either. The 'visiting professor' post mentioned is insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and even if the unsourced claims regarding Nikoonahad's career, inventions etc were verified, they appear not to have attracted the necessary in-depth coverage in secondary sources to meet more general notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Constant314 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a) Good lord, I did a terrible job when I made a two-sentence substub in 2006. I think I may have just been following something from Requested Articles. b) Is "Senior Member of the
IEEE" not itself an indicator of notability? DS (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heck no. I'm a senior member and I'm not notable. The requirements are a certain number of years plus a recommendation from three other senior members. The chapters compete (friendly) on numbers of senior members, so my chapter has an annual senior member drive. You bring in your resume, a three SMs read it and endorses it, and voila, you are a senior member. Constant314 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I believe I may have been thinking of "Fellows", then. DS (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Might have a high enough citation factor, I can't find it though. Appears the prolific scientist/engineer, several patents found under his name. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Scopus, his h-index is only 8.[2] Netherzone (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the US Patent Office grants over 380,000 patents a year. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far from passing
WP:PROF#C1 or #C3, the New Scientist source does not have in-depth coverage of him, and there seems nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Doesn't meet either
MrOllie (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - A WP:BEFORE search online reveals very little, mainly social media content. The subject of the article does not pass criteria for
WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2023 (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.