Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Eftekhari


 * 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. Core desat 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ali Eftekhari

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V as there is no third-party sources to (1) assert notability, (2) maintain NPOV, (3) verify claims made in the article. nat.utoronto 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe these claims are not the case. The article was nominated for neutrality for a long time, but no claim was made. I searched the net there are many pages about this person. In addition to more than 100 publications in leading journals, he has numerous honors offered by famous scientific communities. This number of honors for a person of this age guarantees his presence in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.28 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I se no honors, except for the editorship of a minor 2-year old journal in his area devoted almost entirely to publishing special topic issues. With respect to his research, I see about 100 papers, but the most cited five have been cited only 31, 31, 26, 24, and 24 time respectively. There is only one article in a major general journal, PHYSICAL REVIEW LET,   Volume: 48   Issue: 14   Pages: 953-956, in 1982--cited  26 times.  He did not write the book claimed in the article, -- merely edited it: .   Considering his present affiliation, a one-man research institute trying to offer "virtual degrees"   I am frankly extremely dubious. DGG (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The CRN interview is a secondary source, but I'm not convinced of its reliability, and there's not much else here that would pass WP:BIO. WP:PROF is also a weak case, with no real academic position and poorly cited pubs. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.