Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh


 * 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)  Rcsprinter  (tell me stuff)  16:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was speedied twice (2008, and August this year). Speedy now declined. Has this guy really done something significant? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The in-cites interview and his Google Scholar citation counts (9 articles with over 200 citations published since 2001) seem sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Qwfp (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Qwfp. CSD#A7 was indeed inappropriate: the article makes (very large) claims of notability. So much so, in fact, that CSD#G11 could have been more appropriate... The article needs complete re-writing. Parts of it are wrongly interpreted from the in-cites interview (a "medical diploma" in Germany is not an MD) and the whole thing is written in an inappropriate, unencyclopedic, breathless and overblown way. But the interview, the fact that he published one of the most cited articles in his field, and the other citation data demonstrate clear impact on his field, so this passes WP:PROF#1. --Crusio (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been re-written and I have added (rather impressive) citation data, establishing without any doubt that he meets PROF#1. --Crusio (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I remain unconvinced that this chap has made a major impact. It is possible to achieve numerous citations if you're notable within a very small niche area of science. JFW &#124; T@lk  18:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, getting this many citations in a "small niche area" would be even more impressive. If an area is small, there will be fewer articles published and, hence, fewer citations to go round. --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Reverse epidimiology" is mentioned in some 1800 papers in Google scholar, and is the primary subject of approximately 60 (that is, the phrase appears in the title of these papers). Kalantar-Zadeh's papers are the top three in citations among the 1800. That, even more than the impressive citation/h-index counts taken out of context, convinces me that he is the world's top expert in a subject of some significance and therefore that he passes WP:PROF. He is also a fellow of four medical societies; I'm not familiar enough with their fellowship requirements to say for sure but it seems likely that he passes WP:PROF on the basis of some or all of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. My friend and I have worked with the professor, so that we may have conflict of interest. Our other friends had posted this article some 3 years ago, and it survived for over 2 years just until recently I guess, some several months ago when the professor asked us to remove most of the data, so that the version before deletion was not useful any more. This time we have his permission to keep the core information. His work is beyond "Reverse epidemiology", at least in Japan he is also known for bone and minerals and in Google scholar he has close to 10 000 citations. But he agrees that the article should be deleted or kept at the discretion of Wikipedia editors. —Jun. Miaym. (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (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.