Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soroush Saghafian


 * 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. Clear consensus that the subject doesn't meet WP:NPROF. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Soroush Saghafian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don’t think the subject of this article meets WP:NPROF. He is an Assistant Professor, Adjunct Faculty member etc. with a string of non notable awards. The only reason for uncertainty is his Google Scholar score, which looks decent and might get him over the threshold, but I doubt it. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as copyvio. Humdrum (ab)use of Wikipedia as a LinkedIn substitute. No indication that WP:PROF can be passed; his h-index as calculated by Google Scholar is only 14, and one of the papers contributing to that is actually by other people and listed on his profile in error. "Best paper" awards add up to nothing, as far as evaluating notability is concerned. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the statement above about listing other people's paper on Google Scholar in error is incorrect. All of the top ten most-cited papers on his Google Scholar page were written by him. The most cited paper "Flowshop Scheduling..." was written by the author while he was a Master's student at Sharif University. Also, it should be considered that disciplines in social science tend to have much lower impact factor. For example, the impact factor of Management Science, one of the most prestigious journal in the field, is 4.2. Considering that the majority of his papers are from the INFORMS journals (the leading journals in operations research and management science), which all have relatively low impact factors, his h-index is high. For example, his first-authored paper in Operations Research "Patient Streaming as..." is cited over 132 times (the impact factor for Operations Research, one of the most respected journals in Operations Research, is 2.6).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.62.189 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the statement above about listing other people's paper on Google Scholar in error is incorrect. No, it's correct. "Poisson coordinates" was not written by Saghafian. All of the top ten most-cited papers on his Google Scholar page were written by him. No, "Poisson coordinates", which was not written by Saghafian, is #8. The most cited paper "Flowshop Scheduling..." was written by the author while he was a Master's student at Sharif University. The fact that it was written while he was a student, and at a very junior level in the academic system, counts against it, because it is less plausible that a master's student led the work or made the lion's share of the original contributions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the H-index above, I agree that XOReaster has pointed out an error. However, I checked his Google Scholar and it looks like his H-index is still the same 14 after removing the incorrectly included paper. So, if I'm counting correctly, that one paper doesn't inflate his number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.62.189 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m not sure it is a copyvio. The article is a list of titles, awards etc. and however that might be sourced it is going to have substantially the same content as any other profile of the subject. Mccapra (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A list of (insignificant) awards is one thing, but a sentence like His current research focuses on the application and development of operations research methods in studying stochastic systems with specific applications in healthcare and operations management lifted directly from the source is definitely a copyvio. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure this is copyvio, as similarities appear to be primarily names of organizations and awards. In addition to citations, I think there is reason to consider this under WP:PROF given the editorial roles described as well as the reputation of INFORMS within operations research. Clark477 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Clark477 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Being "on the editorial board" isn't enough for WP:PROF. Only editor-in-chief counts, and only for top-notch journals at that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being an Associated Editor at multiple INFORMS journal, the most reuptable journals in Operations Research, is significant within the field.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.62.189 (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)  — 211.192.62.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, it isn't. WP:PROF requires head or chief editor specifically. Also, you've already made your "keep" statement above; you only need to say "keep" in bold once. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - an assistant professor almost never passes WP:PROF. This is a far too soon. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a point of notability in that he is the only tenure-track faculty who represents the field of Operations Research at Harvard Kennedy School. Based on his publication, it seems that he has made some significant contributions in the public sector operations research/management. It seems from the sources that he also appeared in several interviews to provide thoughts on the application of OR to public policy issues.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhjljh (talk • contribs) 05:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)  — Lhjljh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Being on the tenure track is not enough for WP:PROF. Nor is merely having published or merely being interviewed on occasion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a reasonable argument that the subject meets WP:PROF under criteria 1 based on google scholar score/citations, and criteria 2 based on editorial work/recognition received at INFORMS, the most significant international conference in his field. There is also a fair argument for WP:TOOSOON mostly based on his status as an assistant professor. However, his publication history and achievement is substantial for an assistant professor and would almost certainly place him as a tenured professor at most other universities.98.118.88.224 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — 98.118.88.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In ~3 years of watching academics-and-educators AfD's arrive at consensuses, I've never seen "best paper" awards accepted as evidence of notability, no matter what the conference. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough, but perhaps those awards should carry more weight. At conferences of a large enough scale, an award such as "best paper" represents the most significant/promising research in the field for that year. It does not appear that only lifetime achievement awards are required to meet criteria 2 of the NPROF. 98.118.88.224 (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm inclined to agree with the nom and with XOR'easter - NPROF isn't met, and while the article is heavy on affiliated sources and the subject's own writing, there's nothing independent and secondary that would get him over the GNG line. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Keep comments and he meets WP:PROF. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. We rarely keep assistant professors, though his citations are close to where we might consider it.  But I believe we're looking at a high-citation field (so the numbers are less impressive), and the content of the article is nothing but education, plus some early-career awards indicating more promise than impact.  Looks WP:TOOSOON for now. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2020 (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.