Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majid Amidpour

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Amidpour[edit]

[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)

lacks sufficient in-depth coverage which are independent of the subject. The subject does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavy citations listed in Google Scholar appear to be enough for WP:PROF#C1. Nominator's claim that "the subject does not appear to meet the criteria" is not backed up by an explanation of whether this was even considered let alone why not to count it.

I couldn't find any SIGCOV from reliable independent sources to demonstrate his notability in English and Persian. Brayan ocaner (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this is a requirement of WP:PROF? It isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. This seems to be a fairly high-citation field, but on balance there's probably enough here for an NPROF C1 pass nonetheless: over six thousand citations, including ten articles with more than one hundred citations each. For the benefit of the nominator, NPROF (unlike the vast majority of SNGs) is widely accepted as an alternative to the GNG, so articles about scholars who meet NPROF are generally kept regardless of whether sigcov exists. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2022 (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.