From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Majid Amidpour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(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

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.