Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esmaiel Jabbari


 * 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) Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Esmaiel Jabbari

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This associate professor at the University of South Carolina has an h-index around 11. Article says he won an award, but I cannot find any evidence that this award even exists. Article mentions that he is in Who's Who. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Scopus show 81 peer reviewed articles, with citation count for the highest of 65, 55, 44, 43, 37 and an h index of 14. He's a chemist working in the field of biological macromolecules, which I claim only slight familiarity with. But I recognize about half the journals as leading ones in the field. I consider the publication record sufficient to show the necessary subject importance.    I personally am willing to consider tenure even as an Associate Professor at a research university the equivalent of notability--it measures exactly the same thing we do--that the person is a leader in the field, who can be counted on permanently to enhance the department's standing. I could however also see limiting that to universities of the very highest standing. USC is unquestionably a research university, though not quite at the highest level.  I am not sure there is consensus for this, however, to the extent there is for full professors at the equivalent universities.  More important, I really do not see the point of devoting effort to removing articles on borderline figures, when there is so much real junk to deal with, so many old unrevised articles to upgrade,  and so many really important people that w do not have articles on.  There are a very limited number of people here working on subject fields like this, and it is not a good use of our time. Every time I stop to do something like this, it prevents me from actually writing a needed stub, or instructing a naive beginning contributor.    DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If we collaborate on writing some needed stubs, will you let some of these COI BLP guys go? Abductive  (reasoning) 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I endorse all the sound arguments given by DGG above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per DGG. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (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.