Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Reza Maheri


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mahmoud Reza Maheri

 * – ( View AfD View log )

vanity page, created by the subject and his socks Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know under what terms he/she has searched the subject. In Google Scholar (articles and patents), I have counted well over 300 citations on his journal papers Link label. On the topic of 'steel bracing of reinforced concrete frames' alone, there are at least 100 journal citations. Also, there are 149 journal citations for his works in Scirus Link label with 144 citations in Science direct journals. With his research work alone he meets WP:PROF.--Strongmind25 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Strongmind25 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak delete. Seems to fail WP:PROF (as well as WP:AUTO), as all I can find on Google are passing mentions of him.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Though it seems WP:AUTO, he is mentioned in number of places.Hillcountries (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Google Scholar for M R Maheri returns papers with at most 33 cites. No matter the field, that's not a significant impact.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - you misinterpreted my statement. By "at most 33 cites", I meant "the most cited paper has 33 cites", not that the collective papers total 33 cites. Now, if M R Maheri had a single paper with 300 cites it would be a different story.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, Elsevier journals before mid-2007 were not included in Google Scholar. This search engine would therefore return erroneous citations and h-index for his work.--Strongmind25 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Strongmind25 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. On the other hand, there's the WP:PROF aspect. Whilst it is hard to judge whether prof maheri meets any of the other criteria, Criterion 9 says that (if any one of these criteria are met the article is valid) The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts. I can verify that prof. maheri is a published author, having written on the Early Civilizations of Kerman, which is by far out of his main area of expertise. I have personally used this book in the editing of the page Jiroft culture. Whilst the editor above used google scholar to gauge this person's impact on the field, wP:PROF itself warns against this, stating that "A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey." If its dicey for some academics in certain fields in the West, imagine how dicey must it be when the article subject is working in Iran. After all, you name me someone who got a professorship with only 33 papers. Clearly by looking at the few sources provided it seems not unreasonable to suggest that this person may be important in his field. Apparently prof. Maheri has worked for such entities as the Ministry for housing and energy of iran and Islamic Azad University. This is why this article should be kept, though this certainly does not mean that the page does not have problems.Karafs (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — Karafs (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. } :*Comment - Many of M R Maheri's journal papers are published by Elsevier (Science Direct). According to Google Scholar, Elsevier journals before mid-2007 were not included in Google Scholar. This search engine would therefore return erroneous citations and h-index for his work.--Strongmind25 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * keep (Though with some clearing up)- This article comes under the jurisdiction of WP:AUTO which, although strongly discourages autobiographies, does not ban them. The main concern about this is obviously NPOV and verifiability. From where i stand the article seems to be pretty neutral, stating only facts and having no wild claims of greatness. on the verifiability issue, I suggest that all that can't be verified be removed. Obviously we must take note that there probably isn't that much information out there about Iranian academics, or in fact academics from any developing nation.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. A search for M R Maheri on GS gives h index of 10. With only 300 cites (see above) this is rather below usual values acceptable for WP:Prof. Do other things help? Comments from more non-spas would help. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Can you provide data from Web of Science or Scopus? Xxanthippe (talk).


 * Results. WoS shows 28 papers, 169 total citations, h-index 8 on the query "Author=(Maheri MR) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

*Keep – I believe, considering the following points collectively, he meets WP:PROF.
 * Delete. fails WP:PROF.Farhikht (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Google Scholar may not be a reliable source for judging M R Maheri’s published work. However, he must be quite active to be cited in who's who in Computational Science and Engineering.
 * He is a co-founder and core member (I believe one of five people) of Iran Center of Excellence for Computational Mechanics; a prestigious research center in Iran.
 * He is associate editor of a number of International journals including the ISI-listed Iranian Journal of Science and Technology.
 * His contribution to and significance in the field of Earthquake Engineering in Iran is evidently very high (membership or head of a number of National committees on codes of practice and standards). I also know that he was the only Iranian keynote speaker in the 5th (latest) International Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology and one of only two Iranian keynote speakers in the 3rd (latest) Int. Conf. on Concrete and Development, both highly prestigious international conferences held in Iran (Ref. can be provided). It should be noted that Iran has suffered extensively from earthquakes in recent times, therefore her scholars are very active in this field. As an example; paper contribution of the Iranians to the 14th (latest) World Conference on Earthquake Engineering was second only to the host nation, China (Ref. can be provided).
 * His parallel work in a completely different field to his field of expertise (Archaeology and history), cited in WP is also very interesting.-Kingfisher48 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Kingfisher48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

However, you have decided to pick at and attack each point individually and unfairly; the Iranian Center of Excelence for Computational Mechanics is reduced to professor's research group and his contribution to Earthquake Engineering is belittled by ignoring other evidence and citing unreliable (at least in his case as is said above) Google Scholar citation counts. Also, I may be a newcomer; but you as an old user are expected to be familiar with the WP policy of Please do not bite the newcomers, adhere to objective arguments and refrain from using such terms as 'sock party'.--Kingfisher48 (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Kingfisher48 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Despite the sock party here, no convincing evidence of passing WP:PROF has been presented. Who's who is a vanity press and doesn't count for anything; huge numbers of professors found centers, and often a center is just a fancy name for the professor's research group; associate editor is not good enough, and even editor-in-chief is only a sign of notability when the journal itself is significant; objective measures of his impact to earthquake engineering, such as citation counts, do not show impact; unsubstantiated opinions about his work being "very interesting" also count for nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I AM NOT A PUPPET! As I have explained here I am not the same editor as user:mrmaheri. And even if I was a sockpuppet, it wouldn't matter, as you yourself have admitted I have provided "convincing evidence".Karafs (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Karafs (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are, though, an WP:SPA. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete Autobios should be held to the highest notability and verifiability standards. If the subject himself, in creating the page, can't be bothered to add verifiable notability support, why should the rest of us waste our time beating the bushes for it?  EEng (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. It is true that this case is somewhat below our usual bar if judged by the stats alone (e.g. h-index 8, as demonstrated above). However, in looking at the publication list more closely, it seems none of his papers have large author lists and he is almost always 1st author. Although it still might represent the usual academic arrangement of the student doing most of the work, it could also mean that it really mostly represents his work. My mind could be changed if more information comes to light. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete after consideration of arguments above and WoS stats of Agricola44. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment comments and !votes by blocked sockpuppets struck out. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  06:49, 12 January 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.