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 Jayron32 05:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad-Reza Zarrindast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently fails WP:V and WP:N. However, my google-fu has been weak with this one and I'm happy to consider withdrawing if WP:PROF can be demonstrated through adequate sourcing. Many thanks, Gazimoff 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Gazimoff 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep' Weak Keep -- see below -- As even the GScholar link shows , very extensive publication record in major international journals, with good citations. Meets WP:PROF. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, these need to be pulled out and the key ones identified. If they're relevant, they should be added to the article. Just coming here with a GScholar link doesn't really help. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't apply to the way academic citations get discussed in relation to WP:PROF. If his work is widely cited, he's notable by PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, I'm getting an h-index of 26. However, he cites himself more than average. His work looks descriptive to me. Can the nominator explain why the google-fu was weak? Abductive (reasoning) 09:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WoS shows > 250 entries with h-index of 25. He may self-cite to some degree (I have not checked), but these two numbers indicate he does not self-cite in most of his papers, otherwise his h-index would be much higher. (For example, if he cited every previous paper in every new one, his h-index would be about 250/2 = 125.) Clear pass on WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment I redid the search in Scopus, which is much more exact for this sort of purpose than GS. It should give the same result as WoS, and it does: 269 papers, highest citations 43, 37 ,35, 34. pharmacology is a field where people publish a great many papers, so the count is not quite as spectacular as it would be in other subjects, but it remains very good. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of self citation, for his highest ranking paper,((1996) European Journal of Pharmacology, 298 (1), pp. 1-6.) about half the citations are to other papers of his, Following that: second highest, 1/2; third, 1/20; 4th, 2/3; 5th 1/20 -- so there is a good deal of variation. I accordingly changed to Weak Keep, above, because this is considerably more extensive than one ordinarily finds. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Can these references be added to the article to ensure that the claims are accurately sourced (in particular "Zarrindast is among top most productive Iranian researchers"). If thet happens, I'm happy to consider withdrawing the nom and closing the AfD. Many thanks, Gazimoff 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but expand the article and modify as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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.