Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khosrow Rezvani


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Khosrow Rezvani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have no doubt that he does great work or has published scientific papers, but I don't see the substantial, in-depth coverage from secondary sources. (I don't think the short, four-paragraph "in-brief" article in the "local business" section of a local newspaper suffices). He also does not meet the WP:PROF standards, so far as I can tell. Neutralitytalk 20:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * delete so promotional, would need to be rewritten from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete per reasoning above. Gah Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. ProQuest search comes up with no significant coverage of the article subject. Citobun (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. His work actually is interesting. I just completed my first research project for grad school on apoptosis and it relates to the origins of animals (long story short: fungi and animal cells die in the same way, and unlike bacteria, archaea, and plant cells). Perhaps this can be re-created when he gets a full chair. We nearly always delete artciels about associate professors. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The GNG, is irrelevant, the question is whether he meets WP:PROF. We judge by the work, not just the rank. (I have proposed earlier actually using rank as a formal criterion, but this did not have consensus. One problem is that the meaning of the rank depends upon the university : Associate Professor means a different thing at Harvard than at USD. Associate Professor is normally tenure, and I cannot imagine Harvard giving tenure to someone with this relatively sparse record. There is only one highly cited publication, with 72 citations, from 2007. He was not the corresponding author, so I cannot tell if he was a postdoc at the time (neither the article nor his website gives a list of positions;  poking around, the date of his PhD, not specified in the article,  is in 2002; in 2013 he was an assistant professor at USD; he was appointed Associate professor in 2016. )  Not yet ready. Might  or might not be when he is Full Professor -- none of his more recent papers  have been cited more than 40 times.  For notability in biomedicine, we usually like to see at least one paper cited 100 times or more.  DGG' ( talk ) 02:45, 17 June 2017 (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.