Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebrahim Bagheri


 * 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. There is only one "keep" opinion that makes an actual argument.  Sandstein  12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ebrahim Bagheri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable. Drako (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no delete rationale on this page, and it cant be updated. scope_creep (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's go through WP:ACADEMIC!
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * We have a total of 2969 citations, h-index 22, and one paper with 1374 citations (see here)
 * Note that he is neither first nor last author of the one highly cited paper. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * He has two awards list:
 * IBM faculty fellow: only at the institutional level
 * PEO medal: still not national level, but fairly prestigious; one medal per category per year awarded across the whole province.
 * 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).
 * Not that I can tell
 * 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * Not demonstrated
 * 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
 * He is a Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair, not at all uncommon.
 * 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * Not demonstrated
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * Not demonstrated
 * 8. The person is or has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * Not demonstrated
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
 * Nope

Overall, the lack of any coverage of this academic makes it hard to demonstrate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenKuykendall (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment An h-index of 22 is respectable. In some fields (e.g., pure mathematics), I'd consider that by itself a pass of WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:PROF is based on showing that a person is influential in their field.(theo ther criteria are m ostly just shorthand for this--meeting any one is sufficient) For people in fields where this  is judged by journal articles--or in some fields, like electronic engineering and computer science--by conference proceedings, this is shown by highly cited jouranal article.s The number of citations depends on the field, and a paper with over 1000 is enough for notability in any field whatsoever (total number of citations or h factor judges productivity, not excellences, and is not even worth mentioning. People are judged by their best work--in all fields. h=22 can mean 22 papers with 22 citations each, or 21 with 22 citations and 1 with a thousand. There's quite a difference.  Painters are judged by their best work that gets into major museums, athletes by their best performance, politicians by their  highest offices.  No amount of mediocre work makes for notability. Excellent work as judged by the standards of the field is.   DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Passes WP:NPROF. scope_creep (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just read the article. It says he has made a nice little career, nothing else. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm still not convinced that his single highly-cited paper is sufficient for notability. I'll admit that >1000 citations is a ton. But there are still a number of issues. To start, this line of work is not mentioned in his article. If this paper has had such a large impact in the field, shouldn't his article have something to say about it? Further, if this paper establishes Bagheri's notability, it should do the same for his co-authors. But they do not have articles. Now, neither of this issues necessarily means we should delete this page. But I think we need to look a little further into this paper and see why it has so many citations. Has it really made significant impact in this scholarly discipline or is it just routinely cited when other researchers use the same data set? On an unrelated note, an IP editor has added the text "Both Canada Research Chair and NSERC Industrial Chair appointments are competitive and highly prestigious national appointments made by the Government of Canada. At the time of appointment, Dr. Bagheri was among only another 13 faculty members in Canada to concurrently hold both national chairs." to the article since the AfD opened. This is both unsourced and unconventional claim to fame. I am still unconvinced that either chair is an notable position, and I don't see how holding both at the same time is more notable. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Oisguad You don't have an applicable delete rationale, that is counted by the closing admin, as it doesn't consider policy. The only thing that count here is h-index. It is peer reviewed metric and as such it makes the subject notable.
 * Just write four papers per year, in each of your papers cite all your preceding papers, and after five years you have h=20. For good reasons our policy does not define a threshold h value that suffices to make an academic notable. I have h>20 myself without being notable at all. -- Oisguad (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BenKuykendall, a chair within an Learned society is an elected position, which means your peer group consider you the most brilliant amongst that peer group, and as result they elect you into a chair. You must be elected into the learned society first, so it takes an enormous of skill and talent, raw intelligence to reach a chair. It is an exceedingly high standard of intellect, so that your at the top of that particular speciality. It is designed in that manner, to ensure that the person who holds it, is the very best. So holding two chairs, means that person is worth an article, more so.
 * That fact his work is not mentioned is a problem for WP, as the person who is writing the article, perhaps doesn't understand the work of the subject. Its weakness and a strength of the WP model but in time it will be added in.
 * There is no independent coverage of his work. No review paper that summarizes his achievements in understandable terms. -- Oisguad (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact his co-authors are not on here, means the articles are not yet written. Perhaps you can write them. As regards the single paper. Einstein wrote two papers, and changed the whole of the scientific world. That one paper could be incandescent, brilliant and his peer group certainly think so. scope_creep (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Scope creep: Bagheri is not a fellow of the IEEE, just a senior member. Sure, this is a position within a learned society, but not a highly prestigious one, as is required for WP:ACADEMIC:3. His "chairs" are not elected positions, rather, it just says he is among the hundreds of academics funded by the NSERC. Finally, on his paper, I agree with Oisguad: if his paper is "incandescent" or "brilliant", than I would hope someone would have spilled some ink on it a reliable source would provide additional coverage of it, which we could use as a source in his article. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We need not to speculate, we can read that one higly cited paper. It was a timely review on a computing competition in the hot field of machine learning. - It would be enormously more productive for us to expand and improve our suite of articles on machine learning instead of wasting time and efforts with biographic trivia about coauthors of this or that moderately impressive paper. -- Oisguad (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability Passes. JPL549 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is no vote. Opinions unsupported by novel arguments are not helpful. -- Oisguad (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Oisguad Next time, Please put the comments below, you have broken the thread, which is bad form and against WP Policy.. The Canada Chair two is Tier two, which is described by Wikipedia as as given to exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field, so it is not some random selection to a chair, instead it has been carefully choosen by his peers for a specific purpose. The idea you have advanced somehow you can write some papers, cite yourself and get a decent H-index is a reason for us to abandon the article is a bit tendentious and disingenuous, missing peer review by 4 and 5* journals (uk term). The Bagheri article has more that demonstrated the ability to reach WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and WP:ACADEMIC. Even when you are selected for two chairs, even if one is an industrial chair, there is always a peer group/committee sitting at the end to decide who to appoint. It is not some random selection, instead a carefully reviewed process to appoint him to the two chairs. It is a Keep scope_creep (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Scope creep, for hurting your feelings about form. Conversely, I would appreciate if you could structure your arguments in a way that it is possible to answer them one by one. -- Oisguad (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Scope creep, now you argue with an "ability to reach" several notability criteria. Which is plain admission that our hero is not notable yet. This said, I fully agree with you that he seems to be an extremely bright and productive researcher. But as long as there is no 3rd-party coverage of his work, it is impossible to write a meaningful biographic entry. Just career steps. Why duplicate them from his CV? Why waste time on such an "encyclopedic article"? I just don't understand what motivates you personally to insist on keeping this article. Of course I could have asked that a thousand other collaborators at a thousand other occasions; I just happened to come here. -- Oisguad (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment BenKuykendall what sort of language is that: I would hope someone would have spilled some ink on it for Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Scope creep: I did not intend to offend by using an idiom. I am sorry if it was unprofessional. I have replaced it with more straightforward language. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. scope_creep (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I would like to see some new !voters.
 * Comment I cant add any more. If there is no coverage at all, then he fails WP:SIGCOV, even if he is notable enough for an article. scope_creep (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  16:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The citation record shows that he was one of five coauthors of a heavily used data set, and not much else. The Canada Research Chair is tier 2; if it were tier 1 it would probably be enough. Nothing else of significance has turned up since the start of the AfD. So he's close on a couple of points of WP:PROF, but I'd prefer to see a clear pass of one than a near miss of two. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only thing going for him is that one of the papers he co-authored has 1000+ citations. Nothing else stands out. That's too little (not a solo-authorship, no other major works, contributions, awards). We can't be certain how important his contribution to that paper was. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:35, 14 November 2018 (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.