Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Banakar

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Banakar

[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)

this article was removed from fawiki today (based on AFD). the creator of that article also has a conflict of interest with the subject of that article. Shiasun (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shiasun (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick glance: Not my area, but leaning keep as meeting WP:PROF based on chair at Lund University & citation profile in Google Scholar. His 2005 book Theory and method in socio-legal research has 293 citations, and there are more than 50 citations for a further six works (293,88,81,75,75,75,55). Pinging @DGG: for an opinion; he deprodded it in 2013 with the edit summary "probably meets WP:PROF--I added reviews". There are likely to be enough reviews to meet the basics of WP:AUTHOR, too. What was the concern at fawiki? COI alone is not reason to delete an established article unless the veracity of the claims is in dispute. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meet WP:PROF-- highly cited work. 8 books from respectable academic publishers), all well cited as books go , one 215 times (heory and method in socio-legal research), which is very high for a book. I can not tell why faWP removed it, but I suppose it was because of the conflict of interest. Though we strongly discourage autobiographies at enWP, that by itself is not enough reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would appear to have held an established chair at Lund University, which meets WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF, notability has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:05, 16 December 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.